Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lions 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 keep. The article has been moved to a more proper title and underwent cleanup since its nomination for deletion, making it appropriate enough for Wikipedia, but it still needs further cleanup. Non-admin closure. -- Boricuaeddie hábleme 23:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Lions in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another "pop culture" list that is cluttered, useless and doesn't serve much purpose. As I've said many times: put the notable ones (if there is any) on the main article and leave it at that. A massive list of each and every mention or reference to the subject isn't a helpful article in any way at all. RobJ1981 19:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as indiscriminate and trivial listcruft. Madonna danced with a lion in a video once? NO?!--Ispy1981 19:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate and very hard to maintain, especially if you're going to lump in "lions in art" et al. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in current form. This article could be good if it actually focused on describing the lion's significance to many societies over hundreds of years. Unfortunately, right now, it's just a list of times that lions have appeared in some media.-Wafulz 20:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This is a closer case than others because of the various uses and mythologies - cross human cultures - that have arisen about lions. Ultimately, coverage of the lion as a synonym or mascot for strength, power, and eventually nation-states is better reserved for lion or the various places its symbolism is employed: e.g., Coat of arms of Norway. Carlossuarez46 20:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response But mythology and such...that would be classical culture, wouldn't it? Calgary 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article should be about the role that lions play in popular culture, how they are percieved in popular culture, etc. Any "in popular culture" article should be an article, not a list, as the list (like this one) usually turns out to be a collestion of loosely-associated information. I'd suggest a rewrite (because lions are notable in popular culture, as being "the king of the jungle" and so forth), but the subject is much better covered by the "in popular culture" section, which deals with the subject in an appropriate manner. Also, I think everyone should keep in mind that "in popular culture" is not the same thing as "in media". Calgary 20:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, regretfully. Were there an article discussing lions in culture (note: not POPULAR culture but culture as a whole, worldwide and spanning the centuries), and were the article to have a discussion as well as a list, that might be keepable. But this is just a list. What's more, much of what is in this list is not popular culture (heraldry is popular culture? Really?) and would be more suited for an article on classical, renaissance, or early modern art. -- Charlene 20:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm..heraldry was popular culture at the time (but anyway). To all those above it will be alot easier to make a better article from here than a blank page. This is how many articles are improved over time. The whole point of WP is it's a work in progress. Deleting sometihng which could potentially be a much better article is counterproductive.


 * Sounds like a good argument for "Move to Lions in culture and expand. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and cleanup I have read the page and briefly done some clean-up on it. This is not "just a list" as many have been contending; it contains extensive discussion as well.  It should be renamed to a more appropriate title such as "Cultural depictions of lions", appropriately sourced (it has some sources now, but not enough), and expanded.  As it stands, it has the bare bones that need to be fleshed out some. 206.246.160.29 21:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - as someone who is working on lion to bring it to FA, there is just way too much to be in the main article yet it could be well synthesized into an ample article itself. "Cultural depictions" covers all bases well. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument "it's not good enough for the main article" is a reason to delete it all, not to keep it on its page.
 * Don't misrepresent what Casliber has said. The initial comment is "There is just way too much to be in the main article; it says nothing about it being "not good enough"! And don't forget to sign your posts. :) MeegsC | Talk 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete when trivia like this gets too large for the main article, the correct response is to delete it, not merge it off. --Haemo 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, cleanup per 206 and Casliber. Author made the mistake of saying the IPC phrase, which is like pouring sugar near an anthill.  This needs to be edited with an idea of tightening it up, since lions have actually been part of "pop culture" since ancient times.  Mandsford 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename -- I've removed a few more of the trivia type examples, if this is kept to examples which are notable for their depicitions of lions then it should be better than the usual In popular culture articles. Saikokira 02:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename The article has improved since it was AfD'd, and there is way too much good stuff here to incorporate into the Lion article. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have moved the page to Cultural depictions of lions.-Wafulz 18:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ex-cellent...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite this article pulling a Charles VII, it's still as barren of cited analysis as ever. --Eyrian 17:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - all trivia needs to deleted; this is not the encyclopedia of the banal. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm..I guess you'll be thinking about nominating all various cartoon episode and serial articles sometime soon then?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - meaningless laundry list that gives no understanding of significance. --Eyrian 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The significance is in the main article on Lion, the reason its not there is it would make the article too big - it is currently a very messy sub article I concede but that is no grounds for removing it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Better here than there" doesn't work. I'm quite happy to add Lion to my watchlist and keep it clean. I've done such things before. If all the significance is in the main article, why include the insignificance here (or anywhere)? --Eyrian 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But it isn't insignificant. Many many articles have subarticles where topics are covered in further detail. Most if not all elements pass notability and as far as trivia is concerned, we have Featured Articles on Simpsons episodes and American based childrens' books I've never heard of here in Australia (I',m not criticising these but highlighting just how big wikipedia actually is).cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, as a decent idea, but rename as Lions in culture or Lions in symbolism, as suggested by others, and clean up per WP:HEY. Bearian 23:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the phrase "popular culture" may be misused in this case, I think that lions do have a "part" in society, and factual statements, such as those in the "lions in religion" sections among others, are far from the trivial snippets of information that the term "in popular culture" leads us to believe. Now that the name has been changed, I think the article is reasonably encyclopedic, but could improve a lot in terms of expansion. All articles can do without trivia, but to say that lions aren't depicted often in social and cultural references is untrue. Spawn Man 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, I think I'll be able to improve it a great deal if it's kept, but there's no use wasting my time now while the issue is still pending... Spawn Man 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The rename and recent improvements have done much to redeem it, encyclopedic value is clear. I could easily see (for example) a master or PhD thesis on this topic. Debivort 02:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename - per Casliber. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 03:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up per Casliber and the comments by Debivort. It looks like a lot has been cleaned up already. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Grr! No one ever cites me! Spawn Man 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And Spawn Man. Firsfron of Ronchester  07:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ;) - Spawn Man 07:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - While I am no fan of useless pop culture sections or articles, I feel this is an important one. Not every animal needs to have a cultural depictions article, but this one does. Lions have always been a major cultural symbol on many different continents. If we can weed out the non-notable pop-culture cruft and keep the (many) more culturally significant examples, this can be a fine and useful article. It would be a different story if it was Cultural depictions of pink fairy armadillos. Sheep81 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - but retitle. "Popular culture" is more likely to be considered POV since not everyone is going to think of the Maasai cultural beliefs as popular, and this article title should doubtless ensure that the beliefs of a tribe that lives amidst lions is covered. Depictions is still not sufficiently wide as it covers only sculpture, writing or art - tangible objects - what about folklore ? Shyamal 05:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and continue to improve. This certainly isn't any more "trivial" than are articles for every track on every CD ever made, or pieces about anybody who's ever had a voice role on the Simpson's! If this information gets put into the main article on Lions, that article would (rightly) be criticized for being too long. MeegsC | Talk 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Casliber and Spawn Man. --Jude. 11:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Casliber, Spawn Man, etc.. Too often articles that can become good or featured get deleted instead because someone thinks that they may be "Trivia" or "un-notable" --Kevmin 13:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Still needs a lot of work, but the topic itself is notable and the rename and introductory paragraph help frame the topic.  Fine with me if people want to pare back the lists, though.  Specific lions in film, art, fiction, etc should be here because they illustrate a larger point, not because it is practical or desirable for this article to list them all (there are too many, for one thing). Kingdon 15:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How do they illustrate that larger point? Making that claim without a cite is OR, and not of the trivial, forgivable variety. --Eyrian 17:27, 20 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.