Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medusa and gorgons 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. Sandstein 10:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Medusa and gorgons in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - this is in large measure a rewrite of the deleted Articles for deletion/Gorgons and Medusa in popular culture. Despite the rewrite this is still a directory of loosely associated topics. All of the same reasons to delete the original article apply to this runaround of the consensus to delete. Otto4711 05:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (again) because this is purely a trivia collection.  The content of the article was the focus of the last AFD and I dont  see how different formatting makes it any different.   Corpx 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unfortunately, I don't see any assertion of notability, references showing that a connection exists between the information (aside from OR), or secondary sources for that matter. (Personally I find it sad that the authors seem to put so much work into it, as it shows a dedication to quality of work.. but if the topic isn't worthy of an article, it isn't going to be, no matter how much work they put into it..) spazure 06:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Keep pending how additional sourcing pans out. Spazure 09:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep He's now got at least two reliable secondary sources, and is still working on it. Let's not forget that Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc started out as an "in popular culture" section. Due to the author's ongoing dedication to making sure it's not just a list of loosely associated topics, and his willingness to work with the community to assure it's a quality encyclopedia article -- I now change my stance to a very strong keep. Spazure 05:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is a human endeavor, and as such can make exceptions, especially in borderline cases -- it is for this very reason that the Ignore All Rules guideline exists. Common sense dictates that this very well-written article (which is abundantly sourced) should be kept, even if it violates the no-directory guideline.  And I think that such a violation would require a pretty broad reading of that guideline, anyway. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 08:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Tlogmer Taprobanus 14:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Medusa or Gorgon, as the case may be. This exemplary rewrite illustrates the way "popular culture" material ought to be handled.  Since it is now adequately referenced, and neither of the chief articles are extremely long, there is no reason for this to be separate from the chief articles. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Strong Keep. I very much appreciate the support of this new version of the article, as I have tried to implement changes to the article based on criticism and comments from other deletion discussions, and am continuing to do so. The more I've researched the topic, the more I believe that much of the information deserves to survive in some form. I think that current detractors may be blinded by the video game references and such; I am coming to see that I will probably not be able to find any sources that will tie them in as support for the general thrust of the article, so I will probably remove the specific game references in my next edit. The scope of the article is now more or less leaning toward the cultural impact of the character, and I am still kind of surprised that I haven't been able to persuade Corpx, etc. of the topic's notability considering I've quoted at least one book written about this exact topic. And that book references others I have yet to explore. Not many other mythological characters are so significant as to inspire so much analysis and dramatization. I was also thinking about merging some of the info back into the Medusa/Gorgon articles (actually just into Medusa, with a link to that section from Gorgon), but I still feel like it may bog the article down. TAnthony 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * TAnthony, when participating in an AFD discussion, please clarify that you are the author of the article when that is the case. You implied it but did not state it directly. Thank you! &#9679;DanMS • Talk 04:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering the transformation this article has gone though since the AfD nom, I don't think deletion is an option at this point. The article has gone beyond the "in popular culture" scope, and ultimately it will be renamed to reflect this. TAnthony 19:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge. Meh.  This is a much better approach to "In Pop Culture" articles than the standard laundry-list format but it still falls short.  It starts admirably by explaining the difference between ancient and modern depictions of the gorgon and its useage in film, but still seems to have a tendency to start regurgitating appearances with extra detail.  Trimming out unnecessary references and merging the appropriate content into Medusa (with an inbound link from the section in Gorgon) would be appropriate in this situation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. User TAnthony has committed to continued improvement and has sourced a book about this exact topic.Canuckle 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think one book should qualify as "significant coverage" through independent sources. Corpx 18:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He said there were others. Canuckle 18:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, Corpx, you are not easily swayed. Obviously a single source isn't enough for a "perfect" article but it should be enough to stave off deletion. TAnthony 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FIVE says wikipedia is not a "trivia collection".  Even if a book examines this subject, I dont think it warrants an article like this.  This article is a "list of isolated facts", as defined by WP:TRIVIA. Corpx 21:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the current content is inappropriate, then edit it. Only if it is beyond rescuing should the article be deleted. There do seem to be multiple sources that examine Medusa in art and culture and feminist theory. On examination, I think this should be Merged into Medusa given its length and potential for expansion. Canuckle 15:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont know how any editing can make it not violate the WP:FIVE, which says WP is not a trivia collection. Trivia sections as subsections of articles are discouraged by WP:TRIVIA and one by itself is a gross violation of WP:FIVE Corpx 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also would like to say that just because a book is written about trivia, it is not okay to list the trivia here. I would think that WP:FIVE supercedes WP:NOTE in this case.  Corpx 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's just a list of appearances, then its vulnerable to charges of being just a trivia collection. However, there have been many notable works of Medusa, and there have also been many examinations of the meaning of Medusa in those works. Meaningful is the opposite of trivial (I think). And the coverage is significant such that it's not violating WP:OR to pull out the analysis. Yes, the examination may be by artist(s) or by period (The Medusa Reader did include works from ancient times to advertising [Versace] to pop culture but was criticized by reviewers for lack of analysis) but examinations by period should be encyclopedic. It isn't OR and it is consistent with WP:FIVE as is Being Bold. Canuckle 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt mind if this was something like "List of works about gorgons and medusas" or something, where only works about gorgons and medusas are listed.  Currently, anytime a gorgon or medusa has appeared in a book or movie, it could be listed here.   Corpx 02:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Unlike 90% of "X In Popular Culture" articles, this one is sourced, provides meaningful commentary on its subject and mostly steers clear of cataloguing trivial mentions. It would be improved by having less reliance on a single book for sourcing, and the Use of the Name section could do with more context, but there's definitely potential. Could merge into either Medusa or gorgon, but as it's a similar length to those articles I think there's a case for keeping it separate. Iain99 18:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'd like to see more improvement and varied sources, but I definitely agree with Tlogmer that the article does not blatantly fail WP:NOT, and Ignore all rules seems to apply. Anyway, what constitutes OR can be blurry. I would argue that simply putting a reasonable and sourced reference in an article and letting the reader assess the relevance is not necessarily the same thing as asserting a connection. TheRhani 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that "Keep" supporter Canuckle made the suggestion on the article's Talk page to ultimately merge this article back into the Medusa article. I think this may be a good idea if if this article continues to develop in the "cultural impact of Medusa" direction; it would be an appropriate part of the Medusa article, which itself needs development in the art and literary sections. This would also reinforce the film references as examples of the character's iconic status and evolvement etc. rather than stand-alone culture references (though in a merge I would probably get rid of more of the smaller refs). Even now I think the article has gone somewhat beyond the "in popular culture" scope. It should definitely not be deleted at this point, as it is involving. Perhaps there is a more appropriate article name. TheRhani 17:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Blatant failure of WP:NOT, just had the bullets removed. Should have been speedied because the concern from the previous debate has not been addressed at all. Jay32183 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you even looked at the article lately? The revision goes way farther than just taking the bullets out. There may be some extraneous things I haven't gotten around to sourcing or removing yet, but the opening, the "Dramatizations" and "Name" sections are pretty well sourced with analytical quotes from a secondary source. I'm sure you're sick of defending your opinion, but perhaps you could be a bit more specific about items that bother you. At this point I don't think your previous argument that "This entire article is an unsourced assertion" is valid. TAnthony 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing that can be done to the article that would make it not fail WP:NOT. Jay32183 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's not a "list of" article, it certainly CAN be rewritten to have no directory aspects at all. The fact that you are too lazy to do so does not give you a rationale to delete it completely. With that logic any article on the site that was less than perfect would just be deleted instead of improved. Be part of the solution and not part of the problem. DreamGuy 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay32183, I'm starting to find it amusing how insistent you are about WP:NOT; the part of the policy that applies is a small paragraph that leaves much to interpretation. TAnthony 07:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to remind you again that WP:NOT refers to the content not the formatting. Making it not a list does not change the fact that the information fails the criteria for inclusion. Jay32183 22:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but this is the language:
 * "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted."
 * It is not specific at all about what constitutes "loosely associated topics" and says nothing about references or how items may be used as examples ... it doesn't actually say a whole lot of anything. You may interpret this or another article as containing "loosely associated topics," and you may be right or you may be wrong, but nothing in the above policy makes your opinion anything more than your opinion.TAnthony 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the article only discusses things that are completely unrelated to each other. Therefore, it fails WP:NOT with no room for interpretation. Jay32183 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly do understand how you can see it that way. However, though the article's scope needs clarifying, I see it this way: the lead paragraph(s) make the referenced statement that Medusa is "one of the most popular and enduring figures of Greek mythology" and subsequent sections begin to illustrate how. The Lost ref may be pushing it, but hey, there's a reason they didn't name the attractive, paralyzing spider Petunia Pig. TAnthony 04:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep I would normally vote delete on something like this, but the article seems to have some value. My concern is that almost all of the references are to a book whose contents I cannot readily check.  This worries me because 1) can't check for copyvio, and 2) not sure if the connections between the pop cultures references are from the book or if they are original research.  In any case, I vote a weak keep because I think this article is reasonably encyclopedic and provides value to Wikipedia, despite my reservations. --Jaysweet 21:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If the contents of the book are not available online, the thing to do is go to the library, not delete the article. :P Not that I have time to do that (or most people, for that matter).  Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Touche. But yeah, I'm not going to the library.  ;p  Hence the weak keep vote...  If I'm not willing to do the research myself, my only other choice is to assume the references are legit.  --Jaysweet 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with citing books - in fact most professional scholarship is still only available in print form (or at exorbitant rates online) so often the best sources available are print ones. Until PLoS and similar projects take off we'll just have to get off our bums and go to the library occasionally. :-( Iain99 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Online access should not be a requirement for sources, but Medusa: Solving the Mystery of the Gorgon is actually viewable online through Amazon.com's "Search within the book" feature. TAnthony 22:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to clarify that I wasn't trying to devalue books as sources for Wikipedia. Many of the very best written Wikipedia articles rely on a variety of print-only sources.  I was just saying that it worries me a little bit that about 2/3 of the references are to a single source that I doubt many of the participants in this AfD are going to check.  That's not a knock against the article; it's a knock against the level of dedication I suspect that most AfD participants (including myself) will have to verifying everything that goes into a particular article.
 * But it's sort of moot now anyway since it's available online. --Jaysweet 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, I wanted to note here that since the above comments, more varied sources have been added. TAnthony 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article is very different from other "in poplar culture" articles that have been deleted. THis article does not present a list of trivia, or describe every looseley associated appearance of a gorgon in contemporary media. Instead the article gives a factual (and fairly detailed) overview of the evlution of gorgons from classical mythology to popular culture, the symbolism that they connote, andtheir implications, with examples serving as a support, but not as the entire article. I could make a better argument for the deletion of Satan in popular culture than has been made for the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extravagance (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - The rush to delete "in popular culture" articles in most cases, and certainly in this one, completely violates the concept of deletion. Deletion is for articles that are unsalvagable and add nothing to Wikipedia. If an In popular culture article has too much trivia on it, delete the trivia, and keep the good refs. It's much easier to manage the unending flow of people wanting to add crap to articles if pop culture sections are split off from the main articles, and it's been the standard and wholly consensus way of handling these things for years. Anyone voting delete should not be allowed to do so without from then on adding the main topic article to their watch list and aggressively removing crap fictioncruft that gets added from then on, otherwise the deletion vote just ends up bringing every part they thought was abd to the main article instead, which is one of the major problems with Wikipedia. DreamGuy 22:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People wanting to add or retain material are the ones responsible for making sure it follows the inclusion criteria. In fact, the people arguing to delete an article don't want any of the content kept, so there's no point in doing anything to the article. Jay32183 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. If you don't want it kept, you are saying that the article itself CANNOT meet Wikipedia standards. If you are saying it currently doesn't meet them but could there is no rationale to delete. I mean, I can say I want your editor account delete because it serves no purpose on Wikipedia, and you can say that's not a valid reason to delete a user and I can say, hey, it's up to you to demonstrate your worth as a user and since you haven't you should be deleted and since I am arguing that you should be deleted and I want you gone then I shouldn't have to be bothered to come up with any sane and rationale explanation. You need to follow policies, not just say "I don't like it." DreamGuy 05:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am, in fact saying that the article will never meet Wikipedia standards. Which is why I said it does not make sense for you to tell people saying the article should be deleted to do clean up work. Jay32183 22:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what gives you the knowledge to be able to see that this article will "never meet Wikipedia standards"? We may as well all pack our bags and leave the project  to you to manage, if you can be so sure about what will meet standards and what won't.  This is an article not a list - and I see nothing wrong with lists per se - but have you bothered to read this one? It's a work in progress for heaven's sake, it is referenced - much more than many many articles here - and this is absurd. Tvoz | talk 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a massive consensus to change WP:FIVE and remove the "not a trivia collection" part, I would agree with the statement. Corpx 04:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to avoid these discussions, but came upon this one, because I happened to want to improve this specific article today. So, please Keep, because I am making some improvements to this article.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per the comments of DreamGuy and Extravagance. Better to have popular culture stuff in its own article than cluttering up more serious and intellectually-oriented articles. It also does serve a purpose in illustrating the modern usage of gorgons, which is a substantially different thing than classical usage, and researched enough (as evidenced by the plethora of refs) to be it's own article. --clpo13 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, better here than there is a terrible reason for having an article. If the information is "clutter" in the main article then the proper course of action is to remove it, not preserve it by dumping it off into its own aricle and onto the laps of other editors. As for the "plethora" of references, eleven of them come from within a handful of pages of a single book and the rest are from such scholarly works as Yahoo TV listings to capture such important references as a fictional poison and a fictional spider that are not in fact depictions of either Medusa or a gorgon but are simply things that share the same name and are otherwise not associated with the mythological creature. Otto4711 15:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What does it matter if the current references are from a single book, are any of the quotes/claims unbelievable or fabricated? You are in such a hurry to delete this, give a person a chance to research the article further, we all have limited time to dedicate to our endeavors here. And I think it's become pretty obvious that much has been written on the topic of Medusa, the sources are out there.
 * The poison/spider references are perhaps trivial, but are perfect examples of the earlier statement that the name itself has connotations, infers paralysis, etc. TAnthony 23:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Proper course of action"? According to whom, exactly? --clpo13 06:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a sourced piece, used by researchers and writers. This seems to be part of the knee-jerk reflexive wholesale deletion of lists of popular culture-related material without careful review and consideration or specific reason why this one is not valid. The project is being damaged by these deletions. We are not Britannica - stop trying to narrow our scope. Tvoz | talk 07:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that this article was created less than a week ago I have to dispute the contention that it is used by researchers or writers. I must also protest your blanket condemnation of the dedicated effort to clean up the "...in popular culture" mess as "kneejerk." Otto4711 15:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies if the word offended, I didn't intend to do that - let's say "reflexive". But I think  if indeed the article has only been here for a week, my point about the deletion nom is accurate: it is part of an ongoing wholesale deletion of what you call the "mess" of "in popular culture" articles, and I think they are being deleted in an indiscriminate fashion for no valid reason.  My shorthand summary "sourced piece, used by researchers and writers"  could have been better worded as "sourced piece, that has value to researchers and writers".  Would that make any difference to you?   I expect not, as you seem to be determined to remove the scourge of popular culture lists from the project, and I for one object to it.  Nowhere, in the Afd's I've seen, have you made a cogent case for what harm is being caused by these or why they should be eliminated. As for this being a runaround, I didn't see you objecting to the rapid renom for deletion of another list that had been kept as "no consensus" recently, so let's be real here. Tvoz | talk 17:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think the sourcing is the problem.  Nobody is arguing WP:NOTE.  Problem is that this is in violation of WP:FIVE, which says WP is not a trivia collection.  This does not make an exception for trivia that's well-sourced.  Corpx 04:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Does it matter that WP:TRIVIA says "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary"? Maybe I'm missing it but I don't see the word "delete" on that guidelines page. Canuckle 19:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Handling trivia says If an item is too unimportant, be bold and remove it., and Avoid very general names like "In popular culture" or "Miscellanea." . And Handling_trivia says Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided.  Corvus cornix 23:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And in my own clumsy way I am trying to improve the article. I've been bold and removed unimportant items (not articles) and suggested kicking appropriate content back into the main article so as to avoid a standalone trivia article. Could connections be stronger. Yes. Can they potentially be made stronger? Given the scale of scholarly review of these, quite possibly yes. Canuckle 00:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, or at the very least, merge. Users are trying hard to keep the article. And surely a list of appearances in other media is not just a trivial collection; what if one wants to see the mythology of Medusa portrayed in film or other areas? Hardcore gamer 48 09:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep trivia out of main articles. IPSOS (talk) 12:50, 19 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.