Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dryads 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 merge any relevant and cited information to Dryad, as gathered consensus deems appropriate. ÷seresin 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dryads in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It has been proposed that this article be (re)merged with Dryads, but there is no valuable content to merge. Furthermore the article's subject does not seem to be independantly notable, as there are no relevant results with searches for Dryads in fiction or Dryads in popular culture. I enjoy salvaging information, but there is no information here to salvage, and as a topic there is nothing notable to be said. Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 15:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, if well enough can't be left alone. Mintrick (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this unreferenced list of original research. The topic itself is not notable per WP:NOTE and the content is so worthless as to not deserve further comment. Drawn Some (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate mish-mash of genuine (though hardly notable) appearances, mere mentions, metaphorical uses, and cases in which dryads aren't even explicitly referred to. Moreover, as the opinions above indicate, the topic itself fails WP:N for want of significant treatment in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge agree material is in bad shape, but many of those books are notable and some of those books have independent sources which talk about the characters in them. Agree the subject is not independently notable of dryad which is why I support a merge. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section on the cultural depictions of dryads, with more examples like the picture found in the existing dryad article, maybe something like that would be good, but I see no content in this article that would be suitable for including in a section like that. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete un-notable, unreferenced, indiscriminate list of random trivia. (As are a huge proportion of similar 'articles'.) Dlabtot (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - There is certainly enough literary allusions for a short pop-culture section, but far too little for a whole piece. Cites surely could be found with a bit of sleuthing.  Bearian (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge I had no difficulty adding some content with a citation. The contention that the topic cannot be improved is thus disproved.  There is a merge discussion relating to the parent article and that is the proper forum for this matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all "in popular culture" articles as inherently inappropriate to a formal and serious encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the consensus here has been that such articles are valuable. The use of a notable topic in notable works of fiction is an encyclopedic subject. Contrary to Stifle, the study of popular culture is a serious academic subject, with dozens of academic books a year and hundreds or thousands of articles. And even if it weren't WP is in any case not aiming at a scholarly encyclopedia but a general one. As for WP coverage of them, we need to increase the amount of careful attention that is paid to these articles, for they are not all of high quality. This one, like most Wikipedia  articles on most subjects, needs some work. I think a dozen examples are sufficient. The discussion of them now needs to be exapanded beyond the present. DGG (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a deliberate misstatement of fact. You know that these articles get regularly deleted (though not all the time, it's true). There is no broad consensus in either direction, as you are well aware. Mintrick (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2009 (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.