Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runes 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. Sr13 05:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Runes in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Laundry list of loosely associated trivial references. Boils down to "times fiction has featured stick-looking letters". --Eyrian 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Golfcam 16:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think I'm going to automatically vote for any article titled "_____ in popular culture." (Sounds like a bad Match Game question.) Realkyhick 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. Useight 18:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia/WP:5 Corpx 18:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--and unlike some of those above, I've looked at the article enough that I can say something about this particular article they are obviously an important common element in role playing games, as well as other significant cultural artifacts. it's appropriate to an encyclopedia that covers such games that there be an article on the subject of the use of them. DGG (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "unlike some of those above" - mind WP:AGF. Punkmorten 20:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Realkyhick. Slartibartfast ( 19 92 ) 01:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Contrary to DGG, this article does nothing to discuss the significance of runes in videogames (if any). This style of article encourages the thoughtless accumulation of factoids without context, which undermines any sort of substantive discussion of a topic. Abberley2 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' - I agree, DGG, that runes are important and often have cultural significance. However, this is (yet again) a laundry list of trivia surrounding runes.  It is not even about Runes in Popular Culture; it's just a list of mentions, uses, or what-have-you.  --Haemo 01:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' per this logic. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator, with a comment that I disagree almost completely with Le Grand Roi's argument on said page. CaveatLectorTalk 03:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and for the record, I have looked at this article and all of the others before voicing my opinion. This article in particular is a violation of WP:NOT, as are most ...in popular culture articles.  That "Runes see some use in popular culture" is a relevant statement, but it would be better to expand the importance of their influence and choose a few key examples to list in the main article, and not create a mere laundry list of every video game that happens to use rudimentary rune-ology.  It's unencyclopedic and unnecessary. María ( críticame ) 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete After reading the article, I agree that this has little, if anything, to do with actual runes. At one point, there's a reference to "runiform script" which is another way of saying that "it looks like runes".  That's not much different from the "Chinese-looking" writing that one often sees at a cheap "Oriental-looking" store.  Mandsford 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering DGG and Haemo/Abberley2's points, it strikes me that DGG is right, if someone only wrote a descent lead saying why runes were notable in popular culture. Missing a good lead is no reason to delete. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Man, you're rune-ing it for everyone. Mandsford 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reason to have a bullet list of every time runes were used. Punkmorten 20:10, 28 July 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.