Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balder 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 all. Sr13 06:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Balder in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These lists are simply jumbles of loosely associated information. The notable elements of the lists are better suited by categories, which I have created at Category:Norse mythology in popular culture and Category:Norse mythology in art and literature. I am sure that some of these topics can be covered by a well sourced article that actually has meat and actually discusses the influence of whatever mythological figure is mentioned, but for now I feel that they should be deleted. CaveatLectorTalk 20:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to nominator - the articles added subsequently to this nomination are not properly linked to this nomination. Please add the correct afd template to each, which is Balder in popular culture . Otto4711 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep It seems like sort of useful, but only of you have a list of all the other Norse gods in popular culture. Delete not informative, thinking back on it. --Onceonthisisland 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not quite sure how they are useful... CaveatLectorTalk 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Hmmm Thinking back on it, Iguess it isn't really that useful.  I change my mind (see above) --Onceonthisisland 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * don't delete, but consider redirection to Norse mythology in popular culture for each case seperately. dab (𒁳) 21:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for the same reasons other "in popular culture" articles are nuked -- they're indiscriminate lists of loosely associated topics. These articles have no use whatsoever. And this comment receives the most edit conflicts I've ever had -- three of 'em. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are frankly too many here to get any serious input on -- but I would definitely say that we could probably collect the entire shebang onto an improved page of Norse mythology in popular culture, which actually seems to be trying to be an encyclopedia article, and not a list of trivia. So, I guess I would be saying "trim and merge all".  --Haemo 21:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - these are all directories of loosely associated topics. They tell us nothing about the mythological figures, Norse mythology in general, the fictional or non-fictional items from which the references are drawn or the actual cultural impact that any of these figures have on the real world. Otto4711 21:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * so what, in your opinion, speaks against redirection to the main article? The only difference will be that the factoids will still be visible in the edit history. dab (𒁳) 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the heads up about the templates, Otto, they should all be fixed now. CaveatLectorTalk 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally I dislike "in popular culture" sections on mythology articles because, pace the nominator, they "are simply jumbles of loosely associated information" with little feel for proportion or context. These "in popular culture" articles, on the other hand, have been very useful for keeping the main articles clear of this sort of trivia. For years I've been making edit summaries like: "reverted - put this into the popular culture subarticle". To now delete these honeypot subarticles feels like the second phase of a devious plot... I can't say I'll miss them. Some people will, though. Haukur 22:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh no! Please, please don't do this -- if you have trivia which cannot be merged, it should be removed, not sent to a "honeypot" article. The concept of honeypot articles is something Wikipedia is not.--Haemo 00:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would have placed it in separate afds because some of the editors have a different view depending on the article. However, delete all as they are trivia-filled with little or no sources.--JForget 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all and relist individually The articles of of different strengths. The general policy is unsettled, and the individual discussions seem to be coming to different conclusions, based on the individual articles. The defense for an articles is its individual significance, and this should be discussed. Most such related groups of variable strength articles have gotten unbundled here, o the advantage of discussions based on the content of the articles. Merging to one Norse mythology in [popular culture would seem to have too much material. DGG (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The individual discussions by and large are not coming to different conclusions. There may be the occasional pop culture article that makes it through AFD but for every one that survives several are deleted. If there are some that you believe rise above the usual poor level of such articles, you can certainly advocate for them individually here. Otto4711 03:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mandsford 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete While i would also like these to be listed individually, I looked through them all and they all look like trivia to me (WP:5) Corpx 02:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, yet more indiscriminate lists of trivia. Resolute 04:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, do NOT relist This is a perfectly legitimate group nomination by the nom. Bulldog123 13:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, none of them satisfy our criteria for encyclopedicness. Punkmorten 18:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Odin -- I'd rather relist them individually, but at their present stage of development, the strongest of the batch seem to be Odin. There are major works of fiction using him as the central character in one form or another, and many where he appears in a less central but still culturally relevant role: .DGG (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I really hate the tactic of nominating 14 separate articles in a group, with the most unlikable one ("Baldur" being misspelled) listed first. I can't assume good faith on that one.  Caveat, I honestly do not believe that you looked at all 14 articles, and I believe that you simply grouped them together based on their title.  I don't care how many people vote with you.  This isn't a perfectly legitimate group nomination, it's a tactic.  To your credit, Caveat, you say that you've created a category -- I'll assume you're telling the truth on that one -- but fourteen articles at a time?  I'm calling you out.  You're doing nothing more than nominating these because they have the words "in popular culture" in the title and they refer to Norse mythology.  I haven't read the articles --- what's the point?  So I'm not going to vote keep or delete, but at least I'm honest about it. Mandsford 01:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I'd appreciate it if you used a little civility if you have a problem with this nomination. Second, I put 'Balder' first because that article is first alphabetically, and if you'll notice all the other articles are also in alphabetical order.  Thirdly, I went through EACH of these articles and assessed whether or not they should be deleted individually, and found that they were all almost the same article (they tend to all contain most of the same references).  Lastly, there's no need to 'assume' that I'm telling the truth, you can look at the page histories of ALL of the articles in Category:Norse mythology in popular culture other than the '... in popular culture' articles and see who it was that added them into the category (i.e. me).  Lastly, we are not voting.  Wikipedia is not a democracy.  These are not votes.  This is a discussion.  If you have problems in the future with the way I or anyone else nominates an article or a group of articles, please express those concerns in a civil manner rather than a tone such as this. CaveatLectorTalk 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Very well. I have a problem with this method of editing.  However, your explanation is appreciated.  Mandsford 18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All All total junk/trivia articles. Biggspowd 02:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - nothing but unencyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, Loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 05:05, 30 July 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.