Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippogriff 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 with Hippogriff. Onetwo three... 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hippogriff in popular culture

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

Trivial list cruft/clutter. If there is any notable content: it should be in the main article only. This appears to be yet another "let's move it to a new article to sweep the trivia away", which is a poor solution. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - indiscriminate collection of trivial information. The project is not served by a list of every time someone said the word "hippogriff" in any fictional setting. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hippogriff deleting the unimportant examples. No one really likes this stuff except for the people who like it but it exists.  Yes it detracts from many an article on a serious subject.  But there are some important members on the list and they should be incorporated into the main article where they have context and the rest eliminated. Drawn Some (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and look for actual sources. "Nobody likes this stuff except for the people who like it" is not a reason for deletion -- or keeping -- or even relevant. Myself, I think the uses of major cultural legends in notable work is always notable.  the nom apparently does not agree with WP:BEFORE. Perhaps we should make it mandatory.  DGG (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the nom apparently does not agree with WP:BEFORE. What exactly qualifies you to declare what the nominator does or does not agree with? How do you know what the nominator did or did not do regarding WP:BEFORE prior to making this nomination? As an administrator, shouldn't you know better than to try to make this about the nominator rather than the nomination? Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "agree with" is a synonym for "has done as suggested by". The conduct is immediately pertinent to the nomination. I could find an elaborate paraphrase, but it would say the same thing.  DGG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Agree with" does not mean "has done as suggested by" under any reasonable interpretation of the English language. One describes an opinion. The other describes an action. Next time you mean "has done as suggested by", try elaborately paraphrasing it as "has done as suggested by". Otto4711 (talk) 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Hippogriff. a little   insignificant  19:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge back to Hippogriff. This material is practically useless without context. What does a hippogriff signify? How has this changed over time? Remove non-notable appearances, keep the significant and/or iconic ones. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merging is a foolish idea. Firstly, what exactly will be said? The utterly uninformative generic pop-culture disclaimer of "Hippogriffs have appeared a lot in popular culture, such as...."? Naturally, the Harry Potter and D&D examples will be used. And then a third one, because humans think in threes. And then some fanboy will come along, and remember that hippogriffs are in this totally awesome game or manga, and then that'll go onto the list. Fifteen bulleted examples later, we're back at square one. Let me make this perfectly clear: absent specific citations of relevance, no mention in pop culture should be considered more relevant than any other. Merging is a vain attempt to isolate those that are importance, typically through some kind of OR declaration. If you've got sources to write a legitimate cultural perception section, do it. Otherwise, don't mess up a legitimate article with a bunch of navel-gazing fan refs. Mintrick (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the fact that the hippogriff is used as an heraldic charge irrelevant to the main article? Drawn Some (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, yes. There is no citation to back that up. Mintrick (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some available . It helps to recognize that there is an alternate spelling "hippogryph". Drawn Some (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then cite it and add it. Mintrick (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Since when are Hippogriffs in pop culture? Harry Potter books 1-7? Oh, and --Unionhawk Talk 23:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Random trivial works like The Satanic Verses and The Worm Ouroboros The article only contains those works that people have indeed heard of to the extent there are notable Wikipedia articles about them. . DGG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge this back, per everyone else. It would be hippogrittical of me to say otherwise.  This should never have been split off in the first place.  Mandsford (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge completely arbitary split. What makes one literature mention a pop culture mentin and another one not? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * we could easily retitle it Hippogriff in fiction. Satisfied? In fact, given the nature ofthe examples, and that some are in classic literature, I will do so after its kept. I don't want to do it during the discussion. DGG (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is the classical hippogriff ain't factual either. I had hoped to propose a merger before this AfD came up, like with bugbear, saving the need for this debate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling it Hippogriff in fiction or anything else doesn't change the fundamental fact that this is nothing but a list of times the word "hippogriff" appears in a book or a play or a video game. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Random and indiscriminate collection of unrelated mentions of the word used to describe different imaginary creatures. Edison (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hippogriff - which is what I did a month ago but somebody else reverted. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Going through your past edits, in particular the amount of "in popular culture" articles you've made and / or split from larger articles you really don't seem to be doing much but propagating useless trivia. Besides the fact that almost all of your articles have no references cited, I'm not even sure they meet Wiki's notability guidelines. Additionally, they do not conform to Wiki's goals for "popular culture" sections / articles. The point of these types of articles is that they explain the subject's impact on popular culture rather than simply listing appearances. They do not just list trivia references. Wiki even has a tag to this end (In popular culture), which has rightfully been added to most of your articles. Frankly, most of them should either be deleted or, more appropriately, merged back into their parent articles only listed the entries that explain the subject's impact on popular culture.JasonFrankTed (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Striking through comments from sockpuppet account per Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive -- Banj e  b oi   10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing but a random selection of trivial information. None of these points are notable in themselves. The proper way to include this kind of information would be to mention Hippogriffs in passing in the other articles and link to the Hippogriff article from the others.  Having these backlinks from this article only creates a web of trivia. This doesn't belong in this article nor back in the main article as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  What we feature must be cited and relevant to the parent topic. The only point here that has real-world relevance is the definition from the Devil's Dictionary. That should be moved to the main article (and cited), but the rest of these points fail WP:IINFO and don't belong in any article.  Them  From  Space  10:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this poorly written content fock (what does one do with this bullet for instance "Agesilan of Colchos, a sequel to Amadis of Gaul, published in the 1530s.") and redirect to Hippogriff.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Hippogriff Ikip (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:01, 17 May 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.