Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements 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 Keep, no consensus to delete. -- Visviva 20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Classical elements in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Collection of trivial uses, conveying no information about popular perceptions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. Eyrian 19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a far-too indiscriminate list that covers a huge array of topics in a loosely-connected way. VanTucky  (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate collection. Useight 21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and indiscriminate. CaveatLectorTalk 22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as another trivia article.--JForget 00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Objected as I am not sure that it should be deleted as it was created in responce to the listing of media sources of element use on the classical elements page. I think that the question is what represents an element for use in this article. Also it allows people to look up and compare the uses of the idea of element use. It is a common theme in most media in some form or another, which can show greater information of the ideology of the media. Is it a western view or something more eastern? What is an element, is it just one of the cla ssical elements or something else? How does the idea of elemental forces link with the development of the media source? It shows that common themes tend to appear, like linking Ice with the element of Water. Perhaps this article just needs a better editor then me to bring it all together, still I see an articule like this appearing either here or with in the classical element page. If the latter, then it will cause a major expanse of that article which would just require it's own page in time. Perhaps if you give an idea what would make this articule better, I can correct it. Thanks. HVulpes 10:18, 1 Augest 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, 'better here than there'' is never a good argument for keeping something. You could rename the article 'Cultural impact of the classical elements'.  Find sources and then write an article detailing how and why (in prose, and not prose that merely lists occurances) this philosophical idea has had an impact on western culture.  CaveatLectorTalk 03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking that this might work better as a catergory rather then an article page. Linking media with uses of the theme of elemental power together for easier access. Then if someone is commenting on the themes of elements, one can look up different examples for use. Not sure if this is a better idea or a worse one. Comments? Hvulpes 9:29, 3 Augest 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldn't have guessed from the title that this was about the Earth-Water-Fire-Air meaning of "classical elements". Looks like the article is going to get buried-drowned-burned-blown away on this one.  Not a bad idea for an article, however: 16th Century chemistry is 21st Century magic.  I'll be the George Foreman voter on this one.  Save it to your hard drive.  Mandsford 23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as unreferenced original research. Sadly, it is on a notable topic and could possibly be improved, but I am not an expert on this topic.  I also need to comment that this is another article that might be part of a larger effort used to sort out lots of Pop-culture references, and I have requested it be discussed at WP:RFC. Bearian 21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as sources are available, see below. The reviews on many of the items will show that they talk about it to a significant degree. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to source something like this in 5 days. And finding articles on the general theme is a little tricky because of the lack of good search terms. "elements" is not a specific word. :However, 10 minutes work found "Narrative Performance in the Contemporary Monster Story" by Daniel Punday in The Modern Language Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 803-820 for which the excerpt in google scholar is 1/ "Contemporary theory, as well as popular culture, is clearly in sympathy with ... It stresses elements common to the entire cosmos: earth, water, fire, air; " (i think that's enough to show that the concept too is discussed. I didn't want to say Keep earlier until I had found at least something). There are related ones too 2/ "The Popular Art of Geomancy in the Medieval West and contemporary Asia" by L Braswell-Means - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1990 -" divination,’ is a form of divination associated with the Western Middle Ages, based upon signs derived from the elements: earth, air, fire, and water.  and 3/ "Review: Record Reviews" Author(s) of Review: William Ivey in Western Folklore, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 269-273 "... it is this very failing which gives Songs of Earth, Water, Fire and Sky ... become increasingly adept at applying folkloristics to popular culture, modern country". I think this is enough to show that the literature exists and that it is sourceable, and i remind people that it just has to be sourceable to be kept, not have all the sources already there. . Obviously a proper essay will take a while, but an article does not have to be complete to escape being deleted.DGG (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG and AndyJones. Mathmo Talk 23:28, 7 August 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.