Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paradise Lost 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.  AK Radecki Speaketh  16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Paradise Lost in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection, consisting of little more than bare-mention references, imparting no understanding about popular opinion. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Digwuren 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion; the first item on the list is "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." María ( críticame ) 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although I agree (as I should, having read the damn poem three times in three separate classes) that PL has "had a profound impact on writers, artists and illustrators, and, in the twentieth century, filmmakers," there are no reliable, third party sources to support this claim. Many things draw inspiration from PL, but this list violates WP:NOT as a collection of indiscriminate information.  Any medium or pop culture reference to a quote or theme is fair game, making the article bloated and trivial.  Anything that is notable (and therefore able to be properly sourced), like inspiration used by Mary Shelley and William Blake, can be mentioned on their works' articles.  María ( críticame ) 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the rationale above--in addition to mentioning it in the many separate articles in which it can be demonstrated -- and it's obvious in this case that some of the  music can also be shown to be much influenced, or even specifically on the theme of the book -- this article serves to bring them together. That's what an encyclopedia ought to do. DGG (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless restricted to adaptations of the work and renamed to Adaptations of Paradise Lost. A listing of adaptations of the work is encyclopedic. A hodge-podge of every mention of the words "Paradise Lost" or a quote from the book or a character with the same name as someone in the book is not. Otto4711 22:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the information here should be transferred from a list to a coherent dialogue (as is well discussed elsewhere) that does not seem to me to be a reason to remove the information. Rather than deleting it – why not expand on the opening sentence and start an introduction for each section with the intent of creating an encyclopedic entry. This sort of collection, although trivia, is neither unusable or non-notable, but is inherently compromised on Wikipedia, because if I’m reading the history correctly the article was originally started in order to remove the exact same problem of a trivia section from the original article.--Bookandcoffee 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought that an encyclopedia was meant to explain and discuss topics in a concise, well-sourced, and authoritative manner. Also, editors should remember that 'Better here than there' is not a reason to keep.  As for the article, delete it, and create an article on the Miltonian tradition.  That article is writable, sourcable, and sustainable.  This one is none of these things.  CaveatLectorTalk 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the rationales above--in addition to mentioning it in the many separate articles in which it can be demonstrated -- and it's obvious in this case that some of the  music can also be shown to be much influenced, or even specifically on the theme of the book -- this article serves to bring them together. That's what an encyclopedia ought to do.  (Miltonian tradition is an interesting suggestion--perhaps we should just rename this one now. )DGG' (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing admin, please note that this is the second !vote from DGG in this AFD. Otto4711 23:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I was hoping this might be a decent list because the main subject is more notable than other pointless IPC articles, such as Air Force One, but it is just another loosely associated list of any mention of the title or quote from the book. Crazysuit 01:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists. This is just a directory listing of loosely associated trivia, and a poor one at that. Burntsauce 17:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although some of the dumb should be edited out, concept is good and reasonably well executed summary of the influence of Milton's work on subsequent art Mandsford 01:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as per above list of comments. The concept is good, but there are zero cites. Bearian 20:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep remove mere references, source (which could probably be found) and rename List of adaptations of Paradise Lost because that's what are notable. Carlossuarez46 20:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this applies to many popular culture articles (though I have not been through them all). They serve a useful function of protecting serious articles from being overloaded with trivia, which some people delight in adding, thereby spoling good articles.  Peterkingiron 00:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Better here than there is not a reason for keeping non-encyclopedic articles. Junk information should be deleted instead of split into a separate article and made into someone else's problem. Otto4711 18:40, 5 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 07:57, 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 07:57, 6 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.