Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stonehenge 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 Keep, rename and clean up. ELIMINATORJR 22:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stonehenge in popular culture
Unsourced trivial list clutter. Even if sourcing is done: the article is still a trivial list that isn't helpful. Yet another "moved from the main article" list. Condense and move relevant things in the article: don't just move a cluttered list to a new article. RobJ1981 04:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete but some material may be a relevant to a more encyclopedic Cultural depictions of Stonehenge. Dbromage [Talk] 04:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete Merge the few worthwhile entries (with references for each) and delete the rest. As long as the list exists, it will attract rubbish. MarkBul 05:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Take the information, put it where necessary and Delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. M.V.E.i. 15:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per mostly listcruft and unsourced trivia.--JForget 23:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and retitle as suggested by Dbromage. Retitling does not require afd. The use of major cultural monuments in major cultural works--or in what passes in this period of time as major cultural works--is notable. retitled, an article like this IS the relevant place. Some of the material is probably not worth keeping, but nce again, that;s an editing question. DGG (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are there reliable sources that confirm that a list of things with the presence of Stonehenge, or things that look like Stonehenge, or things that aren't Stonehenge but people refer to as "Stonehenge," or a passing mention of Stonehenge, in miscellaneous places is notable? Otto4711 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per DGG. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Merge per DGG. Thin Arthur 05:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, and retitle if so desired. It was moved from the main article for a good reason, and whilst it exists it saves the Stonehenge article from being cluttered up. The content is an editing matter, to be discussed on the talkpage if people want. If you do want to delete it, then you should really look at Waterloo in popular culture, Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, Tokyo in pop culture and, er Mobile, Alabama in popular culture and do the same with them. Benea 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Spinning off garbage into its own article to keep it out of the main article is most emphatically not a good reason to keep this article. The fact that other similarly bad articles exist is not a justification for this one. Otto4711 00:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I do agree with Otto, why mention the others, they will surely be nominated in their turn. :) anyway, we do have to consider each article in its own light. it is just as wrong to say all articlea [X]IPC are justifiable regardless, as to say that none of them are. DGG (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand me. Bit of a leap to call them crap. As you say they would have to go through a nomination process just as this is doing. Calling this, and those articles crap is therefore a point of view and is preempting that judgement. Alternatively let me put it this way. Perhaps those articles exist because they are a GOOD thing. Therefore the concept of creating these articles maybe has Merit. Maybe it does not. The reason it was initially spun out of the article is because the desperate temptation is for a passerby to add the fact that on a computergame they played there was something that looked like Stonehenge, and to add this to the Stonehenge article in a trivia section. That article deals with the monument itself, and NOT modern imitations (which has its own list article) nor references in painting/fiction/music etc. Instead it goes here where the notable can be sifted from the non notable. I agree that this has so far not happened. I would like to see a lot of the computer games sifted out, and replaced by the entries which make definite, explicit and notable references to Stonehenge. The Royal Navy ships, Beatles concert and the Spinal Tap spring to mind. Incidentally there are also paintings by Constable and Turner that could just as easily be added. If this is your reason for wanting it deleted, it is a matter of content dispute not a subject for afd. On the other hand the article could easily be improved to include more narrative, less trivia and a more detailed (and referenced) look at the iconic nature of Stonehenge and WHY and HOW this is used and exploited. Give this article a stay of execution and I for one will look seriously at doing this. Benea 22:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- If editors add junk trivia to the Stonehenge article (or any other article), then it should be removed from that article and not spun off into its own article. This "we need a trivia dump" mentaility is what's led to this mess in the first place. Every time a trivia or "in popular culture" section gets large enough, an editor recognizes the fact that the information doesn't belong in the main article but refuses to take the next step of actually getting rid of it. Instead it gets spun out into a separate article filled with junk that becomes someone else's problem to deal with. There is no merit in creating trivia dumps of every appearance of a building or monument or car or weapon or whatever. As far as a "stay of execution" goes, there's nothing preventing you from writing such a sourced article (if sources exist that are about the topic of "Stonehenge in popular culture"). You can request, should this article be deleted, that the content be transferred to your user space. Otto4711 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have edited and expanded the page, removed trivia and sourced it (there are really quite a few references for Stonehenge in Popular Culture). Does this article deserve deletion? Benea 21:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand me. Bit of a leap to call them crap. As you say they would have to go through a nomination process just as this is doing. Calling this, and those articles crap is therefore a point of view and is preempting that judgement. Alternatively let me put it this way. Perhaps those articles exist because they are a GOOD thing. Therefore the concept of creating these articles maybe has Merit. Maybe it does not. The reason it was initially spun out of the article is because the desperate temptation is for a passerby to add the fact that on a computergame they played there was something that looked like Stonehenge, and to add this to the Stonehenge article in a trivia section. That article deals with the monument itself, and NOT modern imitations (which has its own list article) nor references in painting/fiction/music etc. Instead it goes here where the notable can be sifted from the non notable. I agree that this has so far not happened. I would like to see a lot of the computer games sifted out, and replaced by the entries which make definite, explicit and notable references to Stonehenge. The Royal Navy ships, Beatles concert and the Spinal Tap spring to mind. Incidentally there are also paintings by Constable and Turner that could just as easily be added. If this is your reason for wanting it deleted, it is a matter of content dispute not a subject for afd. On the other hand the article could easily be improved to include more narrative, less trivia and a more detailed (and referenced) look at the iconic nature of Stonehenge and WHY and HOW this is used and exploited. Give this article a stay of execution and I for one will look seriously at doing this. Benea 22:49, 1 September 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.
