Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charon 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. A few have said to keep the article because it is useful, however that is disputable. A few others have said to merge into Charon. Many have said to delete, per WP:NOT. In this case, the decision is to delete because it is a list of information that would be better off in the main Charon article. However, the article needs a great deal of work to note what is and isn't notable in terms of popular culture. Therefore, best to delete as this article isn't really salvagable before the merge, nor is it necessary for a full article about the topic in popular culture. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Charon in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - directory of loosely- and un-associated items. Seeks to capture any appearance of or reference to the mythical figure with no regard to the triviality of the appearance, along with originally researched 'may be based on' or 'resembles' entries and entries for things that are not the mythical figure but have the same name. Tells us nothing about Charon, nothing about the fiction from which the items are drawn, nothing about their (non-existent) relationship to each other and nothing about the real world. Oppose merging any of this to any other article about Charon as it is no less of a trivia collection in another article as it is on its own. Otto4711 15:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- awfully written by no doubt spamming, academic authors, unsaveable.JJJ999 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete do not merge. Simply not an encyclopedic topic, and the entries show it. MarkBul 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Agamemnon2 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a list of trivial mentions, Charon is important, sure, that's why it has its own article. Every mythological figure has been mentioned a lot in "popular culture", but that does not mean it is a suitable page for an encyclopedia. Dannycali 19:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep list format demonstrates the extent of Charon's influence and impact on popular culture. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and so benefits from large numbers of articles.  Add references, as always, but definitely keep.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is not a free pass for articles. They must still otherwise meet all relevant policies and guidelines. Otto4711 16:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the well-phrased rationales above (trivia, original research resemblance, and complete lack of context). --68.163.65.119 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep WP, as someone said once, makes the internet not suck. that includes organising references to notable characters and themes and assembling the information into articles. The article has been listed for rescue--Im glad to see that some of the people who are a little less ready to keep than I, think it a good candidate for improvement. Sure, it needs improvement., Most WP articles do. DGG (talk) 04:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Again, this is not a debate to whether Charon is notable, that's a given, but it's having a page about various occurances of Charon in "popular culture" that is not notable. This laundry list is even bigger than the main page. Dannycali 06:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Charon. He has always been a popular culture character.  Mandsford 16:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge I usually don't advocate for merging but the Charon article is pretty lightweight unless I'm missing something. This is an informative list which should be turned into several sections in the main article about Charon's influences in pop culture. Benjiboi 11:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Charon per WP:POPCULTURE. --Alksub 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a discussion on excessive deletionism, using the afd on this article as one of the obviously absurd examples, is at
 * Comment. Actually that's more an article in the LA Times about issues including deletionism more than a discussion. Benjiboi 23:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per the Citrus King. Cheers, :) Dloh cierekim  00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if it uses the words "in popular culture" its going to get a delete vote from me... period.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 01:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * good, bad, or indifferent? Perhaps you could explain your reasoning? DGG (talk) 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whenever the article title has the words "in popular culture" it is a spin off of a trivia section... aka some writer was too damn lazy to include the more valuable items in paragraph form, and unable to differentiate between content of substance and random facts. It is typically an unreferenced list of poorly jumbled together facts with no cohesion and very little rhyme or reason. This list falls squarely into all of those aforementioned stereotypes. I don't even need to look (but I did) to know its in rough shape. An encyclopedia is not just a loose collection of random facts. WP:NOT a guide to pop trivia. Any of this ringing a bell? Can you grasp my rationale now?  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is well associated, especially at it's core.  It may need cleaned up and i see no strong argument against merge.  otherwise agree with dgg--Buridan 16:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nomination, this is another list of loosely associated trivia and violates our WP:FIVE pillars.  Bur nt sau ce  16:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, if its horribly written, improve the prose; yes it needs referencing, but articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting "deleting all the excellent articles." That sort of "oh noes, the sky will fall" argumentation is nonsense. Otto4711 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and where is Don't Pay the Ferryman? Carlossuarez46 17:19, 4 October 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.