Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pigs in popular culture (2nd 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Nominating for deletion per Articles for deletion/Chickens in popular culture and Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. There is no possible way that Wikipedia can have a comprehensive article about pigs in popular culture. There are countless references to pigs through the history of human culture. Even if it was limited to the last 100 years, it would be impossible to catalog all the references to pigs in books, movies, television, etc. So instead we are left with a completely random list of whatever references to pigs people happen to think of while editing Wikipedia (mostly without citations). We might as well have Cats in popular culture or Wood in popular culture. Kaldari (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep As the lede makes clear, pigs are commonly used at symbols in Western art and art of other cultures, many examples of which is mentioned here. It's unfortunate that this is called "pigs in popular culture" not "pigs in the arts", as the latter would be far less likely to excite calls for deletion, but it's Wikipedia tradition to call it the former. There's plenty to be written about pigs as symbols, and while it could certainly do with converting from list to text, that's not reason to delete it, since there is important and useful information amid the cruft. Some sources on pig symbolism: from its role as a Christian symbol of cupiditas, to ancient Greek fertility symbol, to Freud and Jung, to say nothing of non-Western meanings. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no doubt as to notability. There are problems of scope and title, but these are essentially editing matters, not for AFD. My inclination would be to split possibly by culture, possibly by topic area - we have an article on Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork for example - but no solution will be perfect. I cannot agree, however, that the subject is simply too difficult for WP which is what deletion would imply. --AJHingston (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep As far as I know there is no policy that says a topic is too important for an "...in popular culture" article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said it was too important. The scope is too broad and covers too many disjointed topics to be a coherent encyclopedia article, IMO. Kaldari (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I quite agree with Kaldari that "no possible way that Wikipedia can have a comprehensive article," and that the "scope is too broad," but this reason is not on the list of Reasons for deletion. And although there is not (yet) an article Cats in popular culture, there is in fact a Category:Cats in popular culture. The category Category:Animals in popular culture has categories and articles for more other animals than you could (or should!) shake a stick at, including articles for Apes, Bats, Birds, Dogs, Insects... and the list goes on.


 * The more fundamental argument is that Pigs in Popular Culture has been useful: there have been dozens of editors, it's been viewed more than 3,000 times in the last month (no idea what this means, though), and there are dozens of links from other articles.ch (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you also support an article Animals in popular culture or People in popular culture? Should we make xkcd a reality and create Wood in popular culture? How about Clothing in popular culture or Americans in popular culture? These would all just be random lists of Simpsons episodes. Is that really useful and encyclopedic? Surely there must be a line somewhere between encyclopedic content and cruft. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree with your basic concern, which you put very well when you say there "must be a line somewhere between encyclopedic content and cruft." All I'm saying is that PIPC is indeed a mess, but on this side of the line, though not very far. It's hard to answer your questions in the abstract. If you want to write Animals in popular culture or one of the others for us to see, then I could could put in my two cents as to whether it is encyclopedic or cruft. But this would have no bearing on the question at hand. In the meantime, "there is no way Wikipedia can have a comprehensive article" is not one of the Reasons for deletion. ch (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2013 (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.