Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilgamesh 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 moved to Adaptations of the Epic of Gilgamesh and trimmed. Jaranda wat's sup 19:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gilgamesh in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists mainly of unferenced and lenghty trivia info of which some can be merged to Gilgamesh article. Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V --JForget 23:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant info to Gilgamesh Giggy  UCP 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Giggy. Not much relevant that I see; it's like an article about Armageddon including "Armageddon outahere" (note to the humourless: "I'm a-getting out of here" is the joke) and every mention of the name or word "armageddon". Mandsford 00:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but only if purged of all trivia, restricted to adaptations of the work itself and renamed Adaptations of The Epic of Gilgamesh. Similar to what was done with Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. Adaptations of the work into other media are notable and encyclopedic. A directory of every instance the word "Gilgamesh" appears anywhere is not. Do not under any circumstances merge any of this into Epic of Gilgamesh or any other Gilgamesh article. Otto4711 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The trivia should be cleared away, but a good article on Gilgamesh in popular culture is certainly doable, and articles that can be improved should not be deleted. -- Valerius 02:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, expands both the parent and referenced articles and demonstrates cultural significance of Gilgamesh. Is above a mere trivia list Guycalledryan 02:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no, not really. It is just a mere trivia list. Resolute 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless pared down to the adaptations and renamed Adaptations of the Epic of Gilgamesh per Otto. I those are encyclopedic, the rest is just trivia. Carlossuarez46 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Corpx, Resolute and nom. This is the most extreme form of listcruft and WP:V violations. Bearian 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is clearly an unsourced article, which can't be verified. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article clearly is. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guycalledryan's insightful argument. Sheesh, the Epic of Gilgamesh is the earliest surviving work of literature -- does everyone saying "Delete" claim that it had no effect on the rest of Western Literature? If you can prove it does not, then hey, let's delete this article, nominate the Epic of Gilgamesh & Gilgamesh for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTABILITY -- hey, how can some jerk who died 5,000 years ago be important? He probably doesn't even have any living descendants. BTW, this list doesn't have a mention of The Simpsons, so for that one reason alone this list should be kept! -- llywrch 03:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This deletion is not about gilgamesh - but rather about about documenting every time this was mentioned in a tv show or book or a song lyrics. Corpx 05:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And that list is a bad thing in what way? Are you saying that this list does not & never will illustrate how Gilgamesh is perceived in popular culture? If so, please explain. Or are you saying that this perception is trivial? If this perception is trivial -- & thus non-notable -- then wouldn't the subject itself then be non-notable? Your nomination above is based solely on content, but instead of improving the content you decided to nominate this for deletion. Dislike of content is not a good application of the AfD process. -- llywrch 16:55, 19 July 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.