Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Ages 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 no consensus. Opinions are split about whether this type of list of lists is desirable. A broader discussion, such as in a RfC, might be helpful.  Sandstein  08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Middle Ages in popular culture

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

I wouldn't be surprised a proper article could be written on this topic. This unreferenced list, however, fails WP:IPC, WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and merits WP:TNT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Popular culture,  and Lists. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious WP:TNT, just a list of lists without any discussion whatsoever Dronebogus (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete As above, a 'list of lists', no content, no context. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's nothing wrong with a list of lists, though the article should be called "List of..." and introduced as such. Lists of lists, like outlines, are standard navigation constructs on Wikipedia. This one logically groups Middle Ages lists by period, so it is also untrue that it provides no context; but context can readily be fixed by editing, and is no reason for deletion either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chiswick Chap So how would you like to rename this? List of lists of topics related to Middle Ages and popular culture? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As currently framed, that would be in the right direction, if rather wordy. But I agree with that the topic as named now is notable in itself, as serious authors like Tom Shippey have discussed it, indeed there is no shortage of WP:RS available. Actually I might remind everybody that notability is not a product of how well or badly an article is put together, but of the subject itself, i.e. how far it has attracted scholars and others to write about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a subject with great potential which could fall under the field of historiography. Depictions of the middle ages often either portray the period as an idealized period of fantasy and chivalry or a time of absolute misery and oppression, and there are often underlying motives behind these narratives which have notable discussion in academic discourse. For example, The Middle Ages in Popular Imagination: Memory, Film and Medievalism by Paul B. Sturtevant might be a good starting point.
 * The current form may not justify an article, but this information could be a useful addendum and reference point for an eventual expanded version of the article, so I think it makes sense to keep it and instead call for improvement and expansion. Chagropango (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:TNT. Christ almighty another one of these. These (historical topic in popular culture) articles could be genuinely good articles if they were written well, but completely worthless in their current state. Curbon7 (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the notion that this should become a list article. I think this and several others in the same vein that have come to AfD, such as Japanese mythology in popular culture, would be very high-quality when written in prose. Curbon7 (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As I noted in the OP, this is potentially a topic of a solid prose article, based on multiple RS. But potential is not enough when the current mess is a textbook case of WP:TNT. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably delete -- This is a list article, but even then a poor one. It would need to be something like List of modern popular culture topics related to the Middle Ages.  It should exclude items like Knight errant, which are primarily topics of medieval literature.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Just an arbitrary list pointing to other lists    Kadzi    (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article is useless in its current state. Even if there is potential for a prose article, there's nothing here to use as a springboard for improvement. Start from scratch in the main article. TTN (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as a perfectly reasonable, navigational set index article. SailingInABathTub 🛁 01:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How on Earth is this a WP:Set index article? Per that page, A set index article (SIA) is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. I daresay that doesn't describe the collection of articles here which includes Historical reenactment, List of translations and artistic depictions of Beowulf, Viking revival, Robin Hood in popular culture, and Knight-errant. TompaDompa (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a list of WP:IPC articles that have the characteristic in common of their subjects being from the same period in history. Historical reenactment should probably be omitted from the list though. SailingInABathTub 🛁 02:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is a set of anything but an indiscriminate mess. It's a list of random topics connected to Middle Ages. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion and topic relevance. If I were studying or just inquisitive about the Middle Ages this encyclopedic resource would both point the way and give me new ideas about where to look. Some editors don't like things like this, hence these type of deletion discussions and the all-too-easy throwing of TNT. I'd remind them that not every useful thing has to be in paragraphed prose. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - per discussion and topic relevancy. If I were studying or just curious about the Middle Ages this particular encyclopedic resource would be useless and confusing. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Mock me a bit, but yes, the page would be a valuable resource for new ideas of where and what to search that reader's may not have imagined or found elsewhere. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a navigational (set index) article, albeit a slapdash one. It doesn't need sources, just articles to point to. I fail to see the harm it causes for the ~15 or so people who visit it each day. This is not a TNT situation, but a SOFIXIT one. Srnec (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:HARMLESS is not an argument, it’s excuse making. Dronebogus (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per SailingInABathTub and Srnec. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.