Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell in entertainment and other 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 No consensus aside from that it needs to be cleaned up. This will eventually get deleted unless the mess of trivia is fixed; one can only claim a good article "could" appear so many times before it's apparent that it's not going to. --Haemo 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell in entertainment and other popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

More popular entertainment cruft. Nothing is sourced. Violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chaos syndrome 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This still going on?  Yes, in its current state this article is not very good.  It is equally obvious that the depiction of Hell in popular entertainment is a rich subject with a long history, that won't go away just because someone quoted a string of acronyms at it.  This page compiles mostly self-referencing data.  In the worst possible scenario, it should be preserved on a subpage of the talk page and linked on Talk:Hell for the reference of future editors. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced, original research material does not get kept in subpages. Corvus cornix 20:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * keep and rewrite - most likely with a rename to Hell in popular culture too. Artw 19:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite as above. Fosnez 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and section - In its current state it gives the appearance of being a bit indiscriminate, although there's no question it's a notable and worthwhile topic. I'd recommend that the article be segmented by type, for example Eastern view(s) of Hell, Judeo-Christian tradition, Germanic, and then the purely fictional constructs of comic book universes, etc.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework It's around okay. It needs work, but I'd let it stay.--Yamakiri 21:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC) This account was created 4 September 2007.  note by administrator Hu12 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rework how? There are no sources to a single entry here.  Corvus cornix 21:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. To vote delete is to risk fire and brimstone, because who knows-- they may be right. Mandsford 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT #1. I know that indiscriminate has become a nasty word in certain quarters, but this list and similar ones are truly indiscriminate by design, in that there is nothing in the context provided that would allow one to retain notable and relevant entries while rejecting nonnotable and irrelevant ones—all that's required is that the reference be to "something in popular culture" and that hell be alluded to, however obscurely. In this article, moreover, the unsourceable subjectivity begins in the first entry ("the most imaginative and famous depiction of hell") and recurs throughout. Everyone's always saying that these topics can be turned into acceptable articles; but I've seldom seen that happen, and I see no reason for unacceptable ones to be preserved while we wait. If there's an encyclopedic topic here, let someone create an article on it afresh. Deor 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. In general "x in popular culture" articles are unencyclopediac trash and should be deleted.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per trivial content + loosely associated.  Is the article really trying to document every time a work of fiction mentioned/showed hell? Corpx 03:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Because, if done properly, it would be once of the largest X in Popular Culture lists in existance. Because of that, it would be an indiscriminate list of loosely connected items. Hell is such a common plot element that there should probably be an article on that by itself, but not a list about times it's used. i said 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've pretty much nailed the direction the article needs to be going in. Artw 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur. The article should become "Hell as a plot element" or the equivalent, but almost certainly with a better title. After all, the way a film or other cultural work depicts Hell or the Afterlife in general is very emblematic of its ethos. --Agamemnon2 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because articles definitely concerns a notable item in entertainment and vairous forms of popular culture. The article has potential and some references and other textual improvements will help in that regard.  Also, I think the suggestion above about renaming the article to something like "Hell as a plot element" does sound appealing as well.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No matter how it comes out, this is one hell of a discussion. Mandsford 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivia cruft, listcruft and so on. A dumping ground of every little mention (many not even sourced, and many that could fall under original research) isn't an acceptable article. RobJ1981 00:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hell. Please keep the information in the article history to allow for possible expansion to "Hell as a plot element" per Agamemnon2. User:Krator (t c) 08:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * comment through discusing the use of Hell in fictional works is undoubtably the direction the article should go in, and I'd enthusiasticly endorse it, "Hell as a plot element" is a sucky title. I'd keep it as Hell in popular culture. ANd TBH if this article is to be used as a starting point then the best course of action is to do just that, rather than deleting it and messing around with user pages and wahtnot. Artw 17:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keeep Somehow, I think all the people who use this motif do think its important, even though the nom and some people here dont personally think so. Fortunately, notability is based not of what people on WP think is notable, but on what the world thinks is notable. (Forftunatey, because if it we based on our own private notions, we'd never agree--not that my view of what is important in the world is better than anyone else's, just that we go by what the world thinks. For example, people in general think professional wrestlers can be notable--but I can't imagine that any one of them ever would be the least notable to me.) I have yet to notice an article on a major plot element or theme that the advocates of deleting this article think is notable, so I wonder if they think that the entire general concept of plot and theme is unimportant? I hope I'm  wrong, so I urge them to give some examples of articles of this sort which they think are encyclopedic--I'll be glad to acknowledge the error of my doubts, and the examples should offer some guide by which we can try to reach some sort of common ground--this is an attempt to find some. DGG (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; unsourced list of people's favorite Hell trivia. Pretty much a poster child for unverifiability and original resource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of folklore. --MCB 06:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hell, which is a hell of a lot better encyclopedic treatment of this topic than this "article" is. I have no doubt that a well written article on the topic of Hell in the art could be written with reliable sourcing.  But this dreck is just another pile of trivia masquerading as an "X in popular culture" article.    The only sourced sentence in the article is the first.  GRBerry 03:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Useful for cross referencing. Ryan4314 00:41, 11 September 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.