Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amazons in popular culture


 * 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 delete. Sr13 06:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Amazons in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Totally uncited laundry-list of trivia Eyrian 05:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom hit the nail on the head. -- Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Lifthra 05:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even by the pathetic standards of "X in popular culture" on Wikipedia, this one's bad. Yechiel Man 07:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the only redeeming feature of this article is that someone at least tried to write it as an article, and not a poorly disguised list. --Haemo 07:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 08:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per nom.
 * Delete as indiscriminate and OR. Gathers any reference any editor can find to any strong woman or women, regardless of whether they bear any relation to the classical Amazons of myth. A great article could be written on the topic of modern usage of the Amazon myth but this isn't it. Otto4711 13:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to a subpage of the talk page and keep. Indeed, a good article could be written on the topic of modern usage of the Amazon myth, and this page contains information that would be helpful towards that purpose.  If it is judged not ready to appear in main space yet, it should be kept for future reference and improvement.  Forking and deleting information is not the best way to deal with this sort of problem. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because contributing firsthand observations to forward an argument is synthesis. There is no significant coverage of this topic, only a list of indiscriminate trivia items.  Per WP:NOT, "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic."  The only problem is, the entries are not famous for having Amazons (except for Wonder Woman, it seems), they're famous for other reasons, and they are only loosely associated for having Amazons.  It is original research to support a topic by providing examples while saying nothing attributable about Amazons' presence in popular media.  Even if attributable sources existed, it would not warrant extra examples that are being uncovered by the editors themselves. Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:15, 21 June 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.