Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Dawkins 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 Delete. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A mix of Dawkins's TV appearances (popular culture?), along with a few other references. Non notable, his 2 TV appearances can be mentioned in his main article along with anything else that's important, this doesn't need a seperate article. Plasticbottle 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I see there has been a long discussion (Talk:Richard Dawkins) regarding trivia in the main article. The consensus appears to be that editors don't want trivia in Dawkins's article so they sent it off into its own article, the clearest explanation was "we decided to create the Dawkins in pop culture article for the unencyclopedic stuff." That says it all really, it seems to be the reason behind most of these "In popular culture" lists. Croxley 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic stuff doesn't belong anywhere on this website. Giving it its own article doesn't make it more encyclopedic. Resurgent insurgent 06:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Croxley and Resurgent Insurgent.Dr bab 08:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Tnomad 13:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  and merge selectively to Richard Dawkins, from which this was apparently forked. My understanding is that Dawkins's chief claim to fame comes chiefly from having written a number of popular science books in which he took stands on social issues involving religion, nature versus nurture, and so forth.  That he was apparently satirized on South Park surely belongs in his article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's claimed that "merger is not an option", obviously this should be kept.  Apparently some editors of the article in chief believe that the solemnity of their subject is sullied by these details of his public career.  Whatever else the vague "policy" WP:NOT might mean &mdash; your guess is as good as mine, but it nowhere defines "indiscriminate information" or "trivia", much less provide for their removal &mdash; it surely must not become a tool to ghettoize and then remove valid information about public figures like Dawkins.  Wikipedia is not censored, and this misuse of a vague heading about what might be "indiscriminate information" would become just that if this were to be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merger is an option, but of WP:PM, not of WP:AFD. As I said, such a merger can be proposed at Talk:Richard Dawkins, but it cannot be forced by the outcome of this AFD. That's all. Also, if this article does get deleted and you succeed in getting consensus for a merger later, an admin can undelete this and turn it into a redirect, which would give you access to the page history for merging. That's rather immaterial to the discussion here, but I offer it in case the suggestion becomes useful to you later. — coe l acan — 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although Dawkins might notable in his field, he has not achieved sufficient widespread notability to justify such an article. (Unlike, say, Stephen Hawking). 23skidoo 17:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not merge; merger is not an AFD option. Either a keep or a delete is fine with me (article creator), but this AFD has been proposed apparently may be interpreted by some as a merger: the nom says "his 2 TV appearances can be mentioned in his main article along with anything else that's important". Merger is an editorial decision and is not an AFD result. Those of you who want the content merged will have to take that issue up at Talk:Richard Dawkins; you cannot have the merger simply as a result of this AFD. AFD is not WP:PM. — coe l acan — 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Where did I say anything about a merger? Don't try and alter the meaning of my nomination in order to discredit it - I said his 2 TV appearances CAN be mentioned in his main article. Not should be mentioned. It was to prevent anyone saying "keep" because they don't want to lose these details. You are just attempting a poor straw man argument, but it won't work. In case anyone else became confused like Coelacan, my nomination was/is to Delete. Delete the whole thing, I have no interest in what you do to the Richard Dawkins article, just don't create any more articles like this. Plasticbottle 00:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - why so aggressive? All he said was that he is opposed to merging and prefers the material be either deleted entirely or left in a separate article. He didn't accuse anyone in particular of favouring merging; it's simply an obvious possibility that he felt moved to comment on. (read "she" thoughout if Coelacan happens to be female.) Metamagician3000 03:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Coelacan did accuse me of favouring merging quite clearly; this AFD has been proposed apparently as a merger. I wasn't being aggressive, I was being assertive to make sure there was no possible doubt over my original nomination. Plasticbottle 03:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was wrong on that point. Conceded and corrected; apologises for my error. He did say it was proposed as a merger. All the same, your language was not merely assertive. In talking about attempts to "alter the meaning", and to try "to discredit it" you were assuming ulterior motives, with no real foundation for doing so. That is quite aggressive language that you used, and hardly in keeping with the requirement to assume good faith. Metamagician3000 03:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Plasticbottle, I'm sorry if it seemed I was trying to discredit you, this was not at all my intention. Your nomination is within the sphere of AFD. It did, however, read to some (myself included) like it carried along with it a merge proposal. Above, for example, Smerdis of Tlön has changed their !vote to keep after I made it clear that a delete result here would not necessarily result in the information being included at Richard Dawkins. So it's probably good that I made that clear, at least from that editor's perspective. As to your proposal to delete, I do not oppose it. I have said keep or delete is fine; I am abstaining from that question. I am glad that you have also now made it clear that there is no merge proposal from you. I did misread your intention somewhat, but I think it's all clear now and I apologize for amplifying my misunderstanding. — coe l acan — 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: The popular culture additions were felt to be unencyclopedic when they were brought up on the main Dawkins page, and they don't become better simply by having them on their own page. Nothing there is notable enough to be in the main Dawkins entry.  Edhubbard 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete.
 * Find a site with a database of Dawkins in popular culture;
 * Include a sentence stating "Dawkins has been featured in popular culture on numerous occasions....[1]"
 * Ref or external link that site


 * &mdash; Deckiller 01:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting will just bring this rubbish back onto the main article, creating edit wars, and those who are voting for deletion will not be the ones who have to deal with it. -- Michael Johnson 11:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Content not fit for an article. Madhava 1947 (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That is actually not a possible outcome of this AFD. If you want content merged, you can propose this at Talk:Richard Dawkins or WP:PM — coe l acan — 21:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see a parallel with Stephen_Hawking_in_popular_culture (Hawking's lack of mobility certainly hasn't stopped him appearing in a huge array of programs !). Dawkin is notable and the (few) programs listed are from non-trivial sources. Ttiotsw 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Apologies in advance to those who disagree: this debate appears fairly high temperature; please do not bite: No need for this article; imo material should be in Wikipedia and should be on the main RD article. Whether that is done by a formal merge, or simply by addition to the main article is perhaps merely technical. Springnuts 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a consensus of editors on Richard Dawkins that this material does not belong there. Therefore editors should not vote for deletion in the belief that merger is an option. -- Michael Johnson 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Response In the discussion pages on Richard Dawkins there are two relevant sections and a debate, but not, as I read it, a consensus. Points such as that made by Smerdis of Tlön below are not universally dismissed.  Springnuts 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: as a regular at the main Dawkins article, I'd most certainly say there is a consensus not to include trivia. If someone disagrees with this consensus, please feel free to (a) read the talk archives and (b) try to convince us that some of the material is important enough to be in the article. Mi kk er (...) 11:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the decision, for the love of God do not merge it back. These articles are created to keep this kind of contents out of the main text, then the seriously minded maintainers won't get burned out. I would vote keep as usual but I got tired that so many people do not see how easily could Wikipedia get worse by sticking with the letter against the spirit. Pavel Vozenilek 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The problem is that there are parts of this article &mdash; at least, the use as a central character of two episodes of the long running and (in)famous cartoon South Park &mdash; that are noteworthy in the highest degree and ought to be in the article in chief.  Indeed, they ought to be there even if a separate "in popular culture" article is kept.  Unfortunately, putting the words "in popular culture" in an article's title seems to be like waving a red flag at a bull, certain to attract unwanted attention.  Since neither Dr. Dawkins nor some of his admirers were much pleased with his treatment on the cartoon.  - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is hard to see in what way a cartoon series is "noteworthy in the highest degree". Are we to use cartoons as a source on Wikipedia? Consulting Disney when writing natural histories of mice or deer, perhaps? I think it fair to say there are two groups of editors, those who edit the article and don't want trivia, and those who want to add trivia but do not otherwise edit the article. --Michael Johnson 06:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * merge with Uncyclopedia. From WP:BLP:
 * "Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Relevant notable sourced claims should be woven into the article."
 * "The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability"
 * Delete this nonsense --Merzul 17:58, 3 April 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.