Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary salamander 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 redirect to Cultural depictions of salamanders. Opinion is split between delete and merge to what is now called Cultural depictions of salamanders. My practice is to close AfDs split between merge and delete as redirect: this allows the editorial process to figure out what if anything sholud be merged from the history.  Sandstein  10:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Legendary salamander in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Considering we already have a decent article on Salamanders in folklore, why do we need this two-footnote, policy salad-failing (WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES) listicle? At best, I think we can redirect it to the aforementioned 'in folklore' article (which arguably could be renamed to have a bit bigger scope and expanded a bit with something. For the record, I checked and salamander's have no topic entry in The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters , but they are mentioned in passing 12 times in the book and in index, Salamander entry redirects to more general 'Elementals'). PS. Recording for posterity, the candidate for the most trivial passing mention of the topic I have seen so far in the 'popular culture' trivisticles: "In Harry Turtledove's novel The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump, the main character mentions in passing that his apartment building uses a salamander as a water heater." PPS. And I'll mercifuly ignore the usage of the adjective 'legendary' in the title, which is pretty much unused in the article body... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Popular culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to a renamed version of Salamanders in folklore. Did not have time to check notability myself. "in folklore" is not the same as in "popular culture". At least the Encyclopedia of Fantasy-referenced part should be preserved, which attests that secondary sources talk about the concept in fantasy. Again, which is not covered in the current "in folklore" article. The current version of our list here would thus be preserved in the history and could help to write and expanded a section, properly enhanced with secondary sources, if someone was so inclined. If someone were to find more secondary sources after all, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to redirect. Based on 's description of the source, the way the introductory sentence is phrased might not be the best one. Still, the topic appears in fantasy as is attested in secondary sources, and a corresponding section in the target article should be created. Some of the examples we have here appear in secondary sources, too, and might be useful there. So I stand by my opinion that the current version should be preserved in the history for potential future use. Daranios (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just realized that Salamander (legendary creature) redirects to Salamanders in folklore. So I guess that could be an more encompassing title (and one which might come to mind easier, actually). Daranios (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For background, there was a move in 2015. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Time for another move after this AfD? From Salamanders in folklore to Salamanders in popular culture? Or Salamanders in fiction? Or maybe Cultural depictions of salamanders, since popculture and folkore are not the same things? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, the whole "legendary" attribute comes from the wish to distinguish the creature of folklore and legend from the actual real-world fire salamander amphibium, on which the fromer is only very loosely based. The real animal itself does appear in popular culture sometimes, as in the case of Lurchi. If we want to keep up that distinction, and this here is not kept separate from the current Salamanders in folklore, I don't really see the point of naming a combined article "in anything" rather than just Salamander (some attribute to distinguish from real-world animal). Daranios (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daranios What do you think about "Cultural depictions of salamanders"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it should not refer to the imaginary creature directly, like in Salamander (legendary creature) (there may be a better term for the distinction from there real creature out there, I just can't think of one). But aside from that, I think "Cultural depictions of salamanders" is better than others because it combines the subtopics. Daranios (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We are getting a bit off topic, but in a useful direction, so I'll ping User:Flatscan on their thoughts regarding the renaming of that article (such renaming which would enlarge the scope would also make redirecting less problematic, right?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no preference among the proposed titles and associated scopes, aside from agreeing that Salamanders in folklore is a bit narrow. I have clarified/retracted my original comment below to focus on the current content. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  to Salamanders in folklore and add that single source in the lead of this article to the lead of that article. That is the only thing that should actually be preserved, as the remainder of this list is unsourced trivia that in the vast bulk of the cases are extremely non-notable examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - So, I took a closer look at the "Encyclopedia of Fantasy" source I initially proposed moving over to the main article, and it turns out that its literally less than a single full sentence of information on the topic. That said, it is completely useless as a source to move over to the main article, so there is nothing that actually should be preserved here at all. Rorshacma (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I used Special:BookSources/978-1-85723-368-1 from the ref and found a Google Books preview for the 1999 revised edition. There are three search results for salamander: the four (two on the same page) brief mentions are insufficient. A nearby mention of Fictitious Beasts: A Bibliography is a possible lead. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you get access to that source, would it be possible to provide a link? Otherwise, as it seems to be short, could you quote what's there? Or at least say exactly which part of the sentence where the reference is used it actually supports? Thanks! Daranios (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Here you go. The article currently specifically cites the mention in the "elemental" entry of the book. It is mentioned on two other pages, but none of them amount to anything but a few words each, and there is no dedicated entry for the Salamander specifically. Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but unfortunately there is no preview available for me at that link. Probably due to different copyrights in different countries. If the salamander would have a dedicated entry would be important if there should be a stand-alone article or not. I am just arguing that the referenced sentence should be kept if it is supported by the source. If this legendary creature from folklore has found entry into the fantasy genre or not, and in what form, is my view relevant and not "completely useless". It is also affirmed by the Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. We have a great number of primary sources here, while the lack of secondary sources has been considered a problem. So I don't think that throwing out the one secondary source is the wrong way to go. Daranios (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry! The text in question on the "Elementals" entry is "Robert S. Heinlein's Magic Inc. (1940) has a simple ball of flame as its fire elemental (or salamander)..." with the remainder of the sentence dedicated to other creatures featured in the book. There is another entry in the book that, during a long listing of many other creatures, states "...the Salamander (a lizard-like creature able to live in fire)...".  There is a third page in the book that also shows up when searching for Salamander, but that one simply uses the word without any further text describing it. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, The Encyclopedia of Fantasy is available online. The "Elementals" entry can be found here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So the source does attest the use of the legendary creature in fantasy, but I guess I would not have phrased it like it is now. I have adapted my !vote. Daranios (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I realized that the "Operation Salamander" item was copied from this source, so I removed it. It was present in the original version, but I think it doesn't qualify the whole article for WP:CSD G12 or WP:RD1 on its own. Rewriting it based on "Operation Salamander" directly would be ideal. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased that passage, do you think it is ok like that? As it was a very short quotation, I think putting quotation marks around it would also have been a solution, so I also don't think this is a problem for the whole article. And again, it shows that our unreferenced list here contains instances which do appear in secondary source, hence my !vote of preserving it for future improvement at least in the form of history. Daranios (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A quotation is a good idea to avoid the copying concerns, with the small downside that it may appear to be quoted from "Operation Salamander" on first glance. I am not a WP:Copyright problems regular, but your diff seems to be WP:Close paraphrasing. Compare to WP:Close paraphrasing in particular. I disagree that the list items will be useful for research: a source like The Encyclopedia of Fantasy can be found by searching for salamander, not for Glottalphibs (The New Rebellion). Flatscan (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Allright, as the part talking about "Operation Salamander" is quite short, I'd assume it falls within "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason" and "when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing" without changing the meaning within that essay. I have added a secondary source for D&D just as a small example, which I don't think would be easy to find by searching for "salamander" alone. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Another, perhaps more serious example, this paper points out the symbolic use of the salamander in Fahrenheit 451. This I found because Fahrenheit was already in this list, it would probably have been very hard to find this based solely on a search for "salamander" in Google scholar. Daranios (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right that entering salamander or salamander fire into Google Scholar returns results for the real amphibian, but salamander fire fiction returned this source at the end of page 3, with a different Fahrenheit 451 paper (citation only) on page 1. I knew what I was looking for, but I think fiction is a natural additional search term, same as fantasy. This source is not very good. International Journal of Science and Research does not have an article, and its impact factor is average at best, if I'm interpreting it properly. One paragraph focuses on salamanders, but it is more of a list of salamander facts than analysis. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As a side note, I found troubling similarities with a Course Hero study guide. I posted details on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good spot, and an unfortunate occurence. That would leave us with the study guide as a secondary source. I don't know if the controversy around it discredits it as a source, but on the other hand the fact that it appears in a study guide shows that recognition of the symbolic use is rather widespread. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with the quote. Rephrasing is difficult because the base is less than a sentence, hence why I mentioned using the original source. WP:Close paraphrasing is tagged as an essay, but it is linked near the top of WP:Copyright violations (policy) and WP:Plagiarism (guideline) as well as in the Advice section of Wikipedia copyright.
 * The Monsters Know What They're Doing: Combat Tactics for Dungeon Masters (Special:BookSources/978-1982122669) supports that salamanders are monsters that a Dungeon Master may use. It is a game resource and would be inappropriate to merge.
 * If this page is deleted, you or any user interested in researching may request the content at WP:Requests for undeletion or Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Special:WhatLinksHere/Cultural depictions of salamanders includes this AfD, so it is still discoverable. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know. I still prefer to simply preserve the content in the history for future use by anyone (at least anyone who looks in the right place), rather than having it available only in a roundabout way. Daranios (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect: there is no usable content to merge, and popular culture content does not fit in this thinly-sourced popular culture content should not be added to (clarified/retracted Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)) Salamander (legendary creature) or Salamanders in folklore.
 * Seeing no large removals in the history, I assume there is nothing significant beyond the current version.
 * When this article was created, its lead was copied from Salamanders in folklore, the proposed target. There have been only minor changes to the text, and the ref's ISBN was converted from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13. None of this needs to be preserved.
 * The brief Popular culture section was removed in 2014 in favor of a See also link. I agree that a bit about fantasy could fit with the current content, as the first sentence of the Fantasy article mentions folklore. The rest of the popular culture content is not appropriate, so Legendary salamander in popular culture would not be mentioned at its redirect target, which is a common deletion rationale at WP:Redirects for discussion.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would popular culture content not fit in Salamander (legendary creature)?
 * And if the referenced sentence were to be merged, the phrase "legendary salamander in popular culture" would appear in the article. And the phrase did appear in the former version you have referred to. So no reason not to have a redirect on that grounds. Daranios (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no sources to support it. If and when they are found, they can be added to that article, and a redirect can be created. Merging the sentence, with WP:Copying within Wikipedia considerations, is unnecessary as it is already in the history. Rorshacma also identified the source's weakness above, so it shouldn't be restored from the history either. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, as I've not seen the source, I've asked for details above. But that refers to my second question, right? What about the first one? Daranios (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I clarified/retracted my original comment above to focus on the current content. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Most likely a plausible topic for an article, but WP:TNT applies, as the article is largely unsourced. Any new popcultural information can definitely fit in Salamanders in folklore, which should be moved back to Salamander (legendary creature) as a general article, where it was before it was moved without discussion, consensus, or any commonsense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, as this fails WP:OR for not having any basis in reliable independent sources. As such, it also fails WP:V, WP:GNG, and so on. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with Salamanders in folklore or move back to Salamander (legendary creature) as suggested by . If it is the former, the mythical salamander information should be in it's own section there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Following the suggestion of Rtkat3, Keep or merge with Salamanders in folklore or move to the previous name of Salamander (legendary creature) as Zxcvbm suggested. Historyday01 (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rtkat3 offered no justification nor addressed the concerns that there is no valid sourcing in the article, so I am not sure what a "Keep" suggestion is being based on here. Keep in mind that AFD is not a vote, so there needs to be more than a simple vote to "Keep" to address the issues brought up in the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What specific content should be merged? There are only two sources. We discussed The Encyclopedia of Fantasy above, finding little relevant content, and the Monster Manual covers salamanders in the Dungeons & Dragons game system.
 * Salamanders in folklore was already moved to Cultural depictions of salamanders on 5 May 2022. The name discussion was started above and continues at Talk:Cultural depictions of salamanders. This article has only been moved from Salamander (legendary creature) in popular culture to Legendary salamander in popular culture, back on 6 December 2008.
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good question and thanks for the background of the page naming. I think any of the sourced content should be moved to Salamanders in folklore, specifically that legendary salamanders are a true fire elemental, that in Poul Anderson's short story "Operation Salamander" (1956), there are fire elementals which have lizard-like shape, obscured by flame that in Dungeons & Dragons, salamanders are serpentine beings who dwell in metal cities in the Elemental Plane of Fire, with the Flamewalkers of the Warcraft series are based on these. Those are the only three parts of the page which should be merged / moved to the Salamanders in folklore page. As such, I support Daranios's suggestion that the "Legendary salamander in popular culture" page be a redirect to a Salamanders in folklore, so that the current version of the list can be "preserved in the history and could help to write and expanded a section, properly enhanced with secondary sources, if someone was so inclined" and for any future use. Historyday01 (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my original comment, the The Encyclopedia of Fantasy ref was present in the source article. If one reviews this diff I provided above, the Monster Manual ref was also available. They can be restored from its history without merging. The other issue is that these sources fail WP:Manual of Style/Trivia sections (guideline, shortcut MOS:POPCULT): all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary or tertiary source which specifically links the cultural item to the subject of the article. This source should cover the subject of the article in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item.
 * As a side note, please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia, as you copied from the article without attribution. Please consider removing the text and referring to them by source. I bear some responsibility because I asked for specifics. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I continue to support a redirect as someone could come across one day and add sources, so I wouldn't consider that outside the realm of possibility. As for copying from the page, I am fully aware of that, and thought about removing the text, but it is such a small part of the page, I would say it falls within existing rules, especially since WP:NOATT will apply in the event that the page is deleted, helping anyone who is implementing the results of this AfD. Additionally, my addition of that text was implied to be about Legendary salamander in popular culture page, which is why I didn't directly mention it. Historyday01 (talk) 12:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sourcing individual items won't address the lack of sources that tie the topic together. If the article is deleted, the attribution for your comment cannot be repaired, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia (shortcut WP:RUD). Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can agree that there is a lack of sources for the article, hence my vote for a merger, but I also see a value in keeping my comment the way it is for the time being. Historyday01 (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am agreeing with the information that was just mentioned by . As I had mentioned, the merge from Salamander (legendary creature) was done without consensus. Plus, we have to list the mythical salamander somewhere in a way it is different from the actual salamanders. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, exactly. That's why I continue to support a redirect. In fact, if I had more time myself, I would be the type of person who would bring back the page and add sources. I'd venture that there are other users like myself that would do the same thing, granted that they have enough time on their hands. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Historyday01 and believe that the Legendary salamander in popular culture page should be merged with the Salamanders in folklore page.173.64.72.34 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Historyday01 and believe that the Legendary salamander in popular culture page should be merged with the Salamanders in folklore page.173.64.72.34 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2022 (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.