Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beelzebub 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 21:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Beelzebub in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another effectively abandoned pop culture article. This one has a reasonable format I tried to impose on it a while back, with very limited annotations of items... however, the extreme lack of worthwhile items leads me to believe we shouldn't bother with an article here. The most important item, by far, is the reference to Beelzebub in the title of Lord of the Flies, but even that item doesn't have much importance to Beelzebub, although it's important to the book article. The rest are just not important to the topic of Beelzebub at all. The inclusion is pretty indiscriminate, too: apparently any mention of "Beelzebub" qualifies for inclusion on the list, as does any mention of a word that might be based on "Beelzebub". Mango juice talk 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any mention of the name in any "popular culture" context with no regard to the triviality or importance of the reference. Otto4711 13:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the phrase "in pop culture" has to actually mean something. It has to be ABOUT the character or object being discussed.  Something named Beelzebub is not about him in pop culture.  Another character called Beelzebub is not a pop culture reference.  A song which uses the word "Beelzebub" in its title or lyrics is not necessarily about him.  Furthermore, every single one of these claims should be referenced, or it should be deleted.  --Haemo 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article is where Beelzebub (disambiguation) takes the user, so some better planning is needed before this article is deleted. As an aside, in the space of an hour this is the third poorly thought out "pop list" Afd that I have found, all with the same noms / people voting delete.  Obviously you guys are working on cleaning up useless trivia, but you need to either abstain from each others Afd's or be constructively critical of each others Afd's otherwise it gives a false sense of consensus.  Check each others work rather than endorsing each others work. John Vandenberg 07:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (Disambiguation-related discussion refactored to the talk page)
 * Per WP:MOSDAB, disambiguation pages serve a limited purpose: to help a user navigate to the aricle they're looking for. So, you have a point, and I'm going to go edit Beelzebub (disambiguation) to an appropriate version, and then its deletion will no longer be implied.  But that's not exactly the topic of debate here: the point is more, should we have an article on Beelzebub in popular culture?  Mango juice talk 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the dab issue, a list of instances where 'Beelzebub' (and creative derivations of this name) is used in culture is IMO useful -- Beelzebub is a meme that began 4000 years ago as being just one god of a town and has grown to represent evil on all levels, as far as being a name for the lord of evil, Satan. This article concentrates on the references in the last 100 years, and the entries are not very detailed, but I dont find it hard to imagine someone making a GA out of this content, similar to Satan in popular culture.  I would be comfortable with it being merged into Satan in popular culture. John Vandenberg 00:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to imagine a GA from this content. Satan, on the other hand, is a much, much more rich subject.  However, a merge to there would just add a few items of trivia irrelevant to that topic.  (For instance, the connection to Lord of the Flies wouldn't make sense to mention there, and the rest are pretty minor.)  Mango juice talk 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a bad article. Although, in comparison to the popular culture section in Gargolye, it suggests a disambiguation page should take priority. Why not redirect the page to its' disambiguation equivalent instead? In this case, there wouldn't be a loss of information now, would there? I&#39;m anonymous
 * This actually used to be the disambiguation page, and was moved to this title, because it was full of trivia about popular culture and didn't actually help people navigate to other pages with the same name. If we leave a redirect in place, I think it would be very bad, because the decent disambiguation page that exists now would start to collect garbage.  It was a mistake to move this page, it should have just been edited down to an actual disambiguation page.  Mango juice talk 13:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Majorly   (hot!)  20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is this relisted? The arguments for deletion are pretty clear and the arguments for keeping are incredibly poor. Delete this article already. Otto4711 02:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; indiscriminate/loosely connected list. Masaruemoto 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article now includes an unambiguous statement of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Keep, reference, and clean up. -- Jreferee 06:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to? Because that's the problem here: the article is abandoned.  It doesn't matter if the word "notable" has been added to the header, unless someone will bring the article into line with that.  Mango juice talk 10:59, 25 April 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.