Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humans 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   delete. JForget 23:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Humans in popular culture

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

While this article may seem appropriate as a valid entry in, and this animal is typically thought of as one of the most notable and thus has received a lot of significant coverage, I have not been able to find coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject (humans). Should significant reliable non-human coverage emerge, I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. Skomorokh 12:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I must confuses to a conflict of interest here, because despite claims to the contrary I am actually a human. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am impressed by your species' intensity of self-loathing. Why can't you be a team player? Skomorokh  12:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a misanthrope of course. It's a recognised philosophical viewpoint - obviously I can't find you any reliable sources for that; they were all created by those filthy little human things, and as such aren't to be trusted. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin; recommend the proceeding !vote be discounted for obvious reasons. Skomorokh  13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. For an article about humans, it contains an odd number of references to penguins. Suggests that the author may be pushing a pro-penguin pov (pppov?) in creating this article. If only WP:BJAODN still existed... --Pretty Green (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith on behalf of our penguin brethern, they have a hard enough time as it is – do you know how difficult it is to type with wings? Skomorokh  13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Surely all humans are humans in popular culture? It's the human popular culture! Funny article, yes, but time for it to go....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Laugh and then delete Good joke, and good point. Many WPers seem more intorested in trivial pop culture references than in the subject of the article. Borock (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy to me. That'll be useful come 1st April.  Oh, and bring back BJAODN!— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * HERCULEAN KEEP Expand infinitely, rename article "Wikipedia" if necessary Vartanza (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for personal attacks. My walk is not humorous. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as joke article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/transwiki Not recoverable from penguin POV - needs to be transwikied to penguin.wikipedia.org,.. RayBarker (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should just offload this POV-laden article onto the Wikipedia most likely home to POV supporters? How irresponsible. Shii (tock) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I laughed when I first saw it, but I can't believe this wasn't speedy deleted under G3. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * split into the various aspects. The penguins (about which we already have an article) detract from the possible seriousness, and show the article was intended as a joke,  but it could also be repurposed seriously. But in practice it needs to be divided:  Humans in relation to other beings, or in relation to the different humans in the far past or future,   includes such a large part of sci-fi and fantasy that it is much better be handled in the appropriate articles dealing with them that already exist. Humans in relation to divine entities is also best done separately.  Humans in relation to their moral and social natures includes such a large amount of ordinary fiction that they are also best separated.  Even works where the intrinsic humanness was the issue,  with regard to the defining qualities of humans as such, will better be handled as   allegory or  philosophical novels       DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Granted there could be a serious article along this theme, or perhaps even some of the sub-themes covered in this article, but the content from this article is not the basis for such articles. Any serious article could easily be restarted at this or, more likely, another title. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete this is the most ridiculous article I've ever seen. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Obviously a joke, but an awesome one. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't good for an article, but it is perfect for a user subpage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointy vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per precedent. Surely the sources here are better than that article because at least we have (penguin-ish) sources here that are somewhat more independent of the subject? Seriously, though, delete per all of the above. Snow, anyone? Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 10 September 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.