Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Molech 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. --Ezeu 18:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

References to Molech in Popular Culture
This is a perfect example of an indiscriminate list of information, so it violates WP:NOT. Also, the guidelines in WP:AVTRIV recommend incorporating relevant trivia into the article rather than making a list. This article is kind of like throwing an old, broken refrigerator into your backyard because you don't want to pay to have it hauled off.Mr Spunky Toffee 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The article Moloch is substantially related to the historical deity while this list is a deviation away from that; a separate sort of thing. While popular culture references are also interesting and in some cases important in their own right, they deeply distract from the scholarly content of the original article.  It was previously the one of the most frequently edited sections of the article and most of the time, the additions to this section are related to video games and monster movies.  So it seemingly has a high interest area as a separate concept.  As part of the article I agree that it may violate WP:AVTRIV, but rather than delete the items of interest to some, I felt that it would be good to give it its own list article. We have articles on all kinds of "crufty" sorts of things like video game details, so this list should not be that bad.  I see no harm in having separate articles with links to each other and while I feel that both articles are improved by being separated, I think this is particularly true for the article relating to the cainanite deity. --Blue Tie 00:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Allow me to quote something you wrote on Talk:Moloch: "Gero, your add was ok, for that section but the section itself is worthless.  It should go.  What possible reason can exist for that virtually useless collection of information?" --Blue Tie 15:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Mr Spunky Toffee 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, but my views that it is useless information may not be shared by everyone. I find it especially bad in the article, but perhaps not so bad in a separate article by itself.  I do not want to deny others an opportunity to add to the knowledge base, but I also do not want to adulterate the article by keeping it there. Does that make sense? (But yeah, I think some of this is really crufty and I accept your criticisms). --Blue Tie 02:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominated; indiscriminate list of information. AuburnPilot Talk 01:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed to keep. It seems there actually is some precedent for these types of articles. There are other articles nearly identical to this one that seem to serve a purpose, but I wouldn't rule out a future AfD. AuburnPilot Talk 03:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ah, but there is also a precedent to delete this sort of article--see Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture and Articles for deletion/FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture for no less than thirty recent examples.  ergot 20:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. We already have Jesus in popular culture and it's already passed an AfD, so that pretty much sets a precedent. wikipediatrix 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, keep, keep. Articles in Category:In popular culture were created to offload garbage from the main texts. Given current structural weaknesses of Wikipedia this is the best solution available now. If this gets deleted the crap will start to accumulate again and the cycle would repeat. Pavel Vozenilek 03:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for the reasons Pavel Vozenilek gave. But anyone who studies popular culture (or has an interest in it) might find some use in it. Books have been written about the history of Satan, God, Jesus, etc., and popular and folk culture have been a part of the subject, so it has some use beyond trivia. And I must express solidarity with my fellow destroyer.ShivaTheDestroyer 17:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mr Spunky Toffee's excellent refrigerator analogy. ergot 20:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep this please there is a precedent for these and it is the best solution now Yuckfoo 01:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Blue tie actually makes an excellent case for deletion. AuburnPilot is unconvincing; if the other articles are very similar, they should be deleted too, and if they're not, they set no precedent.--Poetlister 22:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Same basis as other XXX in popular culture. But why is it spelled differently here than in the main article? Edison 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Pavel Vozenilek, yes he voted keep, but the crap in the main text is easy to control, and in popular culture sections are mainly trivial which isn't the point of an encyclopedia, Mr. Spunky Toffee makes an excellent point as well. Moneyballing 20:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that it is easy to control in the main article. --Blue Tie 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge with Moloch While some XXX in popular culture articles are more then appropriate, many, if not most entries in this particular page have nothing in common with Moloch then his name. What next, a list called John in Popular Culture featuring all instances of the name John showing up? I say merge the more relevant examples of Moloch in popular culture with the main article. Ghilz 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --164.107.92.120 01:50, 3 November 2006 (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.