Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Hood in popular culture

Robin Hood in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. The mere presence of Robin Hood, or a character who "aspires" to be Robin Hood, or who in the opinion of the editor who spots it may be in some way based on Robin Hood but lacks sourcing that says so, doesn't mean that the things bear any relationship to each other. Otto4711 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as a violation of WP:NOT. As pointed out, this list is a mishmash of adaptations of the Robin Hood story, characters supposedly based on Robin Hood, characters with Robin Hood like qualities, and even characters who have used the name Robin Hood with otherwise no connection to the archetypical character in question. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, though rewrite into a better organisation. This article now has references for overall notability of the topic. Per WP:N, it is not necessary to have sources for the notability of each individual item or sentence in an article. None the less, most of them can be found in reviews. Sourced, further sourceable, a topic everyone knows about. I note the nom. made no effort at all to look for even the most obvious sources--didn't even check Google/Google Scholar. (This is of course contrary to WP:Deletion policy and common sense.) Having a common cultural referent is a close connection. Some of these may not have a significant one. We of course do not nom for deletion articles that contain items which may individually not contribute to the article, we edit the article; before removing them, I'd want to do a literature search to see if there is a source for the significance any particular one. Even if characters merely use the name, they use it for a reason, and the critics may well have commented. I think that should satisfy all the objections given above by those people who have given reasons. Possibly 5% of WP articles have been edited to the level of detail demanded here, and I don't thing deleting the other 95% would improve the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No, having a "common cultural referent" is not inherently an indicator of a close connection. I'm sorry, but as many times as you trot this particular pony out, it's still not true. I'm also curious to know how you know what I did or didn't do prior to nominating this article. Unless you're the pregnant girl in the cubicle next to me, I don't really think you're in a position to say. Otto4711 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I made the assumption that had you seen you wouldnt have nominated. I really did, the sources are so pertinent. DGG (talk)
  • Keep, per DGG. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment How does one reliably tell the difference between sources that establish the notability of "Robin Hood in popular culture" and sources establishing the notability of "Robin Hood" the man, the myth, the legend? Even if the overlap doesn't make this a POV fork of Robin Hood, I think this subject title looks like a WP:TRIVIA magnet. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 22:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
well, there's Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture By Jeffrey S. Miller" [1] "John Drake, like Robin Hood and Lancelot of old, traveled from scenic locale to scenic locale, encountering and besting villains ranging from IRA terrorists ..." There's one academic author who thinks notability of RH in pop culture is a real topic. U Minnesota Press published it. DGG (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You are once again making the faulty assumption that because something is mentioned in the same breath as something else that the two things must be related. The sentence you quote doesn't have anything to do with the supposed "notability of RH in popular culture." Otto4711 13:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is what an IPC should be... except for the one instance of someone who aspires to be like Robin Hood, this is about the retellings of the classical story in 20th and 21st century films, books, etc. There are even more that I can think of that aren't on the list. No reason to delete this, simply because it uses the obscenity "in popular culture" Mandsford 23:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mandsford. Other "in popular culture" article editors should read this one and learn from it. Dbromage [Talk] 00:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep For the most part this is a decent article, I don't see the bulk of the references as being trivial or loosely associated. The music section could use a bit of work, but altogether it's not a bad or deletion-criteria article. Calgary 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Both the article itself and the nomination seem to be based on a dichotomy between the archetypal figure and 'popular culture' interpretations or references. Such a distinction might be valid for subjects where one clear and factual topic is more or less accurately or trivially referenced or depicted in popular culture. But Robin Hood has always been a folk or popular tale being retold and modified from the beginning over the centuries, and almost always via some popular medium, be it ballad, tale, book or more recently film and TV. While it may be useful to distinguish between traditional and modern versions or different mediums in organizing the material, we shouldn't split-off and throw away some of it in bulk, but edit and maybe rename or merge considering also Cultural depictions of Robin Hood and the disambiguation page.--Tikiwont 09:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rework This is one of the few articles of this type which is worth retaining. Dominictimms 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing worth reworking, and riddled with OR. The references at the bottom seem to have no actual connection with the article body. This idea is strengthened by the fact that there are no footnotes, and rather than a prose description of the evolution and significance of depictions, we just get a list of trivial references. --Eyrian 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
a few of the ones cited here surely do, such as the one by Dbromage above. They show the article is sourceable; it doesn't have to be finished to be kept. DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I continue to AGF, but I am getting a little impatient. The arguments of the deletors start out by saying there are no sources for the specifics or the general topic being notable. The sources are presented, and they say they are not relevant. Obviously relevant and specific sources are presented, and the response is that they are not in the article yet. I think it is clear that the objection is not to specific content or specific articles. If it were to specific content or references, then the articles would just be being edited, not brought to AfD in the first place. if it were to were to specific articles, the weakest only would be nominated. The only time when the good and the bad are all successively nominated is when the agenda is to destroy the topic. Otherwise, the nominations for the articles where the sourcing during the AfD was shown to be sufficient would be withdrawn. Those bringing the articles here are for the most part just deletors--they have no interest in improving the articles. DGG (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
    • You've sourced nothing. Inserting a few references from which the article is not actually based doesn't constitute sourcing. --Eyrian 23:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Robin Hood is iconic - there will be references and commentray on its depiction out there, just probably in a library rather than online. Article quality per se is no grounds for deletion.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge the important ones back into Robin Hood Way too many trivial mentions + OR to keep this one Corpx 03:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sure, Robin Hood is very popular and important, but the last thing this place needs is more cruft about mentions in other media. Just because a subject is notable in itself does not mean that articles with trivial mentions of said subject are appropriate. There have been pages deleted for subjects far more notable. Dannycali 17:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and chainsaw away the unsourceable stuff. --UsaSatsui 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Harlowraman 20:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.