Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse


 * 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references to the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unacceptable trivia collection (WP:FIVE), adding nothing to the reader's understanding of the subject. Eyrian 21:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps create a category for 'Christian mythology in art and literature' and then delete . CaveatLectorTalk 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This restatement of the pillars has ever been marked as official policy. Nor perhaps should it be, for it incorporates many matters from guidelines and other less-than-pillar matters. Technically, I think its present status is an essay. The official statement of the policy seems to be the one presently on meta  at  and the generally authoritative opinion about the overall principles is Jimbo's at [User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles]. Neither of them mentions that this sort of articles are to be rejected.
 * The provision of the so-called policy page referred to is probably that "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". That is 'not the same as saying that it can not contain some elements that in some way in some  persons eyes seem to be trivia. To delete it under that provision requires showing that


 * 1) it is a correct statement of policy
 * 2) that it applies to all articles that contain lists of trivia, not merely to the overall nature of the encyclopedia
 * 3) that this article contains only trivia--for if not, its just an editing question.DGG (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation of the "essay".  To me, a "trivia collection" is any article that solely contains trivial information.  Corpx 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's thoughts on WP:5/trivia collection - link Corpx 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, concur with CaveatLector. Far too long to integrate, far too detailed to simply squish. Create the category and save the article, as it does seem to have value. Bullzeye Complaint Dept./Contribs) 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - I have no intention of getting drawn into an argument over what the five pillars do or don't say or how to interpret the Holy Rood of Jimbo Wales. For me, the ever-reliable Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics will suffice. This grab-bag listing of every time the FHOTA are depicted or some variation on the FHOTA is alluded to or Satan says "horsemen" in the South Park movie does nothing to illuminate the FHOTA, tells us nothing about the fiction from which the FHOTA references are drawn, nothing about any relationship between the various items or the real world. Otto4711 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * well, I'll stick to policy. There are many types of articles I'd omit from WP entirely if I were running it, but I'm not running it--so I don't nominate them if they pass the rules, for the rules represent the consensus of us all.
 * I call attention to the interesting fact that as the discussion has progressed, first it was alleged that the articles didn't meet one policy, and when that couldn't be proven, then another, and after none of them could be shown  finally the basic foundations. Now it is admitted that those don't give a basis either, so we're back to IDONTLIKEIT, the negation of all rational arguments. For articles IDONTLIKE, I ignore, and leave other people in peace. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh bullshit, or should I say horseshit (of the apocalypse). Different editors can and do cite different policy reasons in the course of AFDs and that one policy argument is raised after another doesn't mean that the first one hasn't been proven. You're certainly free to claim until the cows come home that the arguments raised and accepted in one AFD of these articles after another is nothing more than "dontlikeit" but it doesn't become any more true the 20th time you claim it than it was the first time. Clearly, these articles don't pass the rules. You may not like how the rules are being applied to them, and that's too bad for you. Otto4711 17:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-contextual trivia. This list doesn't really add anything to any particular topics, nor is it very interesting, or referenced at all. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per #3 of DGG "that this article contains only trivia" Corpx 02:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * you've got to show 1 and 2 first. and if you did, or for those who may assume it, then: Ibanez's novel isnt trivial--nor Discworld, nor Piers Anthony, to mention some where the reference is central-- nor Tombstone, nor Chavez,  not Notre Dame, to mention important places where the reference must be known to establish the meaning. I'm sure many of the ones in fields i dont know about are significant too. deletion is the wrong way to edit.  The mentions above of things which should be cut are not reason to delete the whole, for this or any other article. DGG (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While it doesn't have a policy tag on that page, I would hope that everyone follows it.  I have no problems basing my arguments on that one "essay" Corpx 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Changed post-categorization suggestion to keep on the possibility that this can be rewritten into a detailed article with good sources that does not list trivia in this manner. For those interested in helping populate this category, I created it at Category:Christian mythology in art and literature.  CaveatLectorTalk 15:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you realize how many songs/movies/books/tv-shows/paintings reference Jesus, God, angels, Satan, demons, Heaven, Hell, sin, etc? Such a category would not be helpful to anyone. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  19:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * you are correct that that would be an indiscriminate list. A selected one of significant references would be much smaller, and that's what this is, a discriminating list. You've nicely elucidated the difference I intended to show by my examples above. DGG (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as discriminating as List of titles with "Darker" in them (which was deleted, by the way). And what part, honestly, is useful? Someone who is genuinely interested in the Four Horsemen will not really gain much by reading this. 'In the fifth season of Scrubs, episode 508 "My Big Bird", Dr. Cox refers to Turk, Carla, J.D. and Elliot as "The Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse".' The only person I can see who would get an actual benefit from this list is one of the actual Horsemen, because it'd be really cool to show their friends. If this were made into an actual contextual article, it'd still be OR, unless there are verifiable sources on the impact of the Four Horsemen on popular culture. It's WP:Trivia and WP:Listcruft, toss it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja  22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't as good as, In the fifth series of the American Big Brother reality TV show, four of the players made an alliance and called themselves The Four Horsemen. Crazysuit 04:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article, however, needs to be trimmed way down. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have been a cultural phenomenon since the Book of Revelation was written back in the First Century A.D.  Eyrian, I notice that you have nominated NINETEEN articles for today, all having to do with "...in popular culture" or an equivalent.  I don't recall any other Wikipedia Administrator taking such an active role in nominating articles for deletion.  There are 185 nominations to consider, and you and one other person seem to be responsible for nearly 20 percent of that unusually high number.  Unlike the articles about a non-notable person, school or business, the "pop culture" articles generally require a lot more time to review.  Thus, I don't understand why so many are nominated every day.  I think that, whether we vote "delete" or "keep", all of us are getting a little tired of this.  I know that the logical comeback is that I don't have to participate at all, or the old incivility argument, but this is really getting tiresome.  Mandsford 00:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominate many because these lists are self-propagating. If they are left alone, people think they are acceptable, and they multiply. They need to be eliminated at a stroke, to prevent trivia from creeping back into the encyclopedia. I don't see why they take that long to review. No more than 3-5 minutes to read. And it takes little more than reading them to understand their triviality. --Eyrian 00:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "If they are left alone, people think they are acceptable". Interesting.  Are there any pop culture articles that you don't believe should be nominated?  Do you believe that you can stamp out all such articles?  Is there an admonition to editors to not create an a pop culture article.  The second part is that you say your are trying "to prevent trivia from creeping back into the encylopedia".  Was there a time when the so-called trivia had been eliminated?  Was that before Wikipedia started encouraging anyone to edit? :I think that the nominations are "multiplying".  I see no pressing reason for these to be nominated in bunches every day.  The result is the creation of bunches of long debates, and a closing administrator has to wade through each long debate in order to reach a decision.  From what I understand, most of these people are volunteers who are in it because they enjoy it.  There is no reason to increase their workload, since you can nominate the same number of articles over a longer period.  Mandsford 13:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You will note that I chose my terminology very carefully; I said lists, not articles. It's these worthless lists of trivia that need to be excised. In fact, there are articles that I haven't nominated. Because they're cited analyses, not pointless lists of brief appearances. As for workload... if people don't want to work on Wikipedia, they don't have to. The work will have to be done sooner or later. And doing it faster means there's less of it to be done. --Eyrian 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)--Eyrian 15:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the well-expressed nomination & Otto. Eusebeus 02:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly loosely associated trivia based on meaningless mentions of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Crazysuit 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are dozens of articles of this style in Wikipedia. How can just this one be slated for destruction?  Songs, movies, books, fictional characters - why not the 4 Horsemen? --Chiba13 12:27, 1 August 2007
 * Not only is other stuff exists not a valid argument, but you might want to page through the AfD histories of the last month... CaveatLectorTalk 20:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete though a judicious selection of the items in the article could belong in Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I'm not suggesting it be fully incorporated into the main article (like it was 500+ edits ago but that highlights be extracted and integrated into the main article, preferably in the form of a narrative rather than a list.  I agree with Chiba13 that these lists of (mostly pop) cultural references seem randomly targeted. Kayaker 22:44, 1 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.