Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marduk in popular culture (3rd nomination)


 * 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 userfiy to User:AndyJones userspace and delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Marduk in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection, often consisting of name-only references. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE and WP:NOT. Users worried about the main article should know that I watch it and will keep it clean. Eyrian 18:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Casperonline 20:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename and repurpose (i.e., keep) as List of entities named Marduk. This is a set index article, which has a purpose similar to (but not identical to) a disambuation page.  It is a supplement to the Marduk article that fills a specific, encyclopedic role and that is maintainable, verifiable, and non-arbitrary in its scope.  Incidentally, WP:FIVE is a summary of policies -- you should limit yourself to citing the actual policies that support the nomination.--Father Goose 20:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars describe Wikipedia's fundamental principles. They are more important than policy. --Eyrian 21:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And it includes words that imply the existence of policies that don't actually exist. You can't use it it as a back door to support claims which are not held up elsewhere.  "Delete per fundamental principles" is too open-ended to have any weight.--Father Goose 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, removing something because it goes against the core principles of Wikipedia, is unacceptable because it doesn't cite policy? This is Wikilawyering at its worst. --Eyrian 21:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Specify the actual principle. Otherwise it's like saying "the Bible says so".  This isn't a case of Wikilawyering.--Father Goose 21:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection", from the first pillar. --Eyrian 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So where is that principle stated, other than on WP:FIVE?--Father Goose 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More importantly, what is a "trivia collection", beyond "this article I'm deleting right now"? One could say that "Wikipedia is not a place for crap" is a fundamental principle, and I'd agree with it -- heck, I even agree that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection.  But if you said "Delete. Crap." you'd be expressing an opinion, and I might even agree with it, depending on the article in question.  But saying "per WP:CRAP" just translates back into WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  One line inserted into one page -- no matter how much holy water you sprinkle on that page -- doesn't really amount to blanket support for your opinion.--Father Goose 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) Let me return to an actual fundamental principle: why is Wikipedia better without this page than with it?--Father Goose 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's not encyclopedic. Why is Wikipedia better without a directory of phone numbers? Or recipes for various dishes? Because that's not what Wikipedia is about. --Eyrian 23:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a good enough answer. It's a good question, and that if that is the best answer you've got, you've lost the argument. (and I don't think it is true that it isn't "encyclopedic" anyway). ElectricRay 23:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - not functioning as a useful disambiguation page or as a quasi-sub-disambiguation page. None of the appearances of the word "Marduk" mentioned in this trivia list are likely to spawn articles, and if any do spawn articles then they can be added to Marduk (disambiguation). Otto4711 00:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the lesser of two evils. I created this page especially to keep trivia out of the main article about Marduk. I wholeheartedly agree that it's a totally stupid, worthless and pointless page, and on literal application of the policy ought perhaps to be deleted. But it keeps this stupid, worthless and pointless material out of the actual article, and deters people from adding more - since there is a link through to this page, where they can add trivia to their hearts' content. To make an omelette you have to break some eggs: this is one I think we should prepared to break, in the name of the greater quality of the omelette. I don't think this compromises the quality of Wikipedia in anyway, and to the contrary acts like a sort of appendix - putting rubbish stuff out of the way of real information. Who cares what gets posted in Marduk in popular culture? Think of it like a sandbox. It's only a problem if you make it a problem. You see a problem: I see a solution. ElectricRay 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I created this page, it has been edited over 100 times. It is keeping some people, who care about trivia, happy. LET THEM BE HAPPY. Otherwise they are going to be happy all over the main article about Marduk. Eyrian I know you're on an anti-trivia crusade, but don't win the battle in spite of the war - you need to be less committed to unfilinching application of policies, and more lateral thinking. Think of this as a wall erected so people can grafitti on it, and so they don't feel inclined to grafitti somewhere more important. ElectricRay 21:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But people are more likely to put up graffiti if there's an article that says "Graffiti goes here" than if it's aggressively removed. --Eyrian 22:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that's utterly false. But even if it's true, isn't the better thing to put up the wall, let them have their fun, and you don't need to get on your high horse and "aggressively remove" anything? Life's too short to be on a constant school patrol. You might enjoy it I guess, but, honestly, smell the flowers!ElectricRay 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Marduk graffiti" has long been put on the Marduk page, so the existence of an entities named Marduk page can't be claimed to cause the behavior. I don't understand why having a page with verifiable, non-problematic content is so intolerable.--Father Goose 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, I think it's a shame some editors believe it's justifiable to create Wikipedia articles just to act as a "sandbox". They are only adding to the problem by encouraging it. Crazysuit 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Sandbox" is an unfortunate, and inaccurate, characterization. I don't advocate the retention of actual "sandbox" articles.  But maintainable, non-arbitrary articles?  They're fine.--Father Goose 02:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. HOw unfortunate that it doesn't apply here. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hello, another useless and random collection of factoids, documenting where a bunch of unrelated writers drop in cheap pseudo-mythical references to prop up their stories. Whoop-de-do. --Calton | Talk 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep I gather you think that mythological references indicate nothing much--this is a private value judgement of your own. I think that's what adds to the culture density and significance of games. The makers of the games certainly seem to agree with me, as do the players. DGG (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of trivial mentions like this = loosely assosiated topics Corpx 20:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per AndyJones. Mathmo Talk 23:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Further elaborating: I feel that it is important to keep popular culture articles because they inherently demonstrate the notability of the parent article while at the same time keeping the parent article more streamlined. Mathmo Talk 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is completely flawed and against Wikipedia policy, please read User:Eyrian/IPC. --Eyrian 15:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Meh, I see another vague copy and paste reason for deletion.... oh well, nevermind. Mathmo Talk 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge&mdash;shows no notability as a whole, and in its current state is just a list of trivia. I support User:AndyJones' userfy request, and highly recommend it. &mdash; Deckiller 14:45, 9 August 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.