Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture (3rd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Cerejota (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced tangential mentions, redlinks out the ass. Amounts to basically "This has a Cthulhu-like creature in it". The article is inherently OR and synthesis since few to none of the sources confirm the characters as being Cthulhu or inspired by the same. Last AFD closed as delete but inexplicably overturned 3 days later. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually, TenPoundHammer's characterization is no longer applicable.  Other editors have been doing a great job of paring out unreliable and unsourced information.  A number of the entries are now even sourced to independent sources verifying that the Mythos is being represented in those works.  Could the list use more trimming? Sure.  Does that make the underlying concept deletable? No. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep for all the reasons I articulated the last time around. This is not a list of Family Guy references, but a description of how the works of one author and those who followed him have influenced horror fiction over the subsequent 80 years or so. Notable, referenced, nothing wrong that can't be fixed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a real thing--if the subject were of interest to me, I would want this article to exist. Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator: This editor has only nine edits, and only three in the main namespace. Neutralitytalk 19:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, "it exists" is not a valid rationale to keep; existence is not notability. Neutralitytalk 19:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons listed above. 13:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Delete, or clean-up and merge to Cthulhu Mythos. Full of original research and personal opinion of primary sources: mainly sourced to hulu, novels, and personal websites. Dzlife (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or selectively merge per my rationale at the last discussion (this still appears to be a dumping ground for trivia and original research). Although the article really shouldn't have been renominated so quickly, the fact that it stands out as being poor to multiple editors does not suprize me. If this is merged to Cthulhu mythos it should be done so carefully, to only include important facts and not passing mentions. Looking over the sources cited, hardly any appear to be fully reliable and the material they reference (passing mentions from the book series outside the series) is trivial in nature.  Them  From  Space  00:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or selectively merge. Themfromspace's reasoning is well-supported. This kind of material really belongs of TV Tropes, or merged with the main article; Avoid unnecessary splits of content. The main article is not long and could easily support a paragraph or two on this subtopic. Neutralitytalk 19:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing vote as spent of lot of time finding sources. On closer inspection many have had to go as there were no sources or invalid options (e.g. Youtube), but we will eventually have a nice, tight sourced list. PurpleHeartEditor   (talk)  00:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Blatant disruption per WP:DEL as the nominator seems well aware that we had a discussion for this quite recently. The topic is covered in numerous sources including Religion and popular culture, H.P. Lovecraft in popular culture, The guide to United States popular culture, Icons of horror and the supernatural: an encyclopedia of our worst nightmares, &c.   It just needs development from such sources per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Recent edits, some after but many before this latest nomination, have been doing a good (if still incomplete) job of removing the tangential mentions, as reading/watching/playing a number of the works listed would soon make clear (OK, I realise that actually doing this would count as OR). About half the remaining redlinks seem to be typos, and almost all the rest simply need to have the links taken out. Having said that, the article genuinely needs more work than just removing remaining tangential mentions and redlinks, though this is a very useful preliminary to the work most needed. Firstly, the current references are rarely fully reliable by Wikipedia standards - they might be OK for filling in the occasional fact, but an entire article should certainly not be depending on them. However, there are definitely better sources out there - in fact, I'm somewhat surprised that Lovecraft experts like S. T. Joshi aren't currently getting cited at all. Secondly, the article should not consist almost entirely of lists - a few paragraphs on the development of the influence of the Cthulhu Mythos on popular culture, for instance, could certainly be reliably sourced (though the sources might take some hunting down), and would make connections between a number of the legitimate entries on the lists far clearer. But the article needs improvement, not deletion. PWilkinson (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - from the discussion above, it is clearly sourceable, so it can be proven to be notable. That being said, now is the time to make a serious effort to rescue it for good. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep again. One administrator tried to delete it, and like many of his decisions in AFDs, was overturned and had to restore it.  That happens a lot for the guy.  Anyway, showing how something this notable has been seen throughout history in notable works, is quite encyclopedic.   D r e a m Focus  17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is sourced and large enough to justify existance in its own right, not just as a component of another article. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 19:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As for the issue, its a major cultural type, and significant in a whole set of literature--a type of literature not to my taste, but that means very little. Father Goose's comments in the first AfD remain valid, and I cannot state it better. P Wilkinson makes some good suggestions for improving the article. I try to avoid commenting on the nom, but I see that this is another in the series of repeated attempts by the nom to remove as many "in popular culture" articles as possible. Given the variability in results at   AfD due to random participation, eventually determined efforts like this will succeed, regardless of the merits. Most of us have certain views on what should not be in Wikipedia also, but when we do not succeed in removing a class of articles, we most of us stop at that; nobody can  reasonably expect that  all of their views on content will be endorsed by the community.   Going beyond two  successive keeps is unfair  and pointy, and this was kept in 2007 and then as recently as  June of this very year.  Consensus does change, but in the last 2 or 3 years, it has changed in the direction of keeping these articles. I suggest no further nominations of this one for several years at the very least, and not until there is some indication that the community has changed its general opinion.   DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 14 September 2011 (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.