Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinigami 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   merge to Shinigami. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Shinigami in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose any merge into the "main" article. This article is distinct from the article Shinigami, and lumping a bunch of modern references that have no indication of significance of the popular perception of that legend gives an undue weight to the modern pop-culture navel gazing that I find disturbingly common. This article has a specific topic, and it should not be shoehorned into other, to the detriment of both. Deletion or keeping are both acceptable options, as long as the material is not allowed to worm its way back into Shinigami. Mintrick (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Shinigami article is small, so I see no good reason for why important pop culture notes (if there is any) shouldn't be listed there. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Size is the problem, if these dozens of references are dumped into the Shinigami article, they totally overshadow that article's purpose, and turn it into nothing more than a list of elementary allusions. If there are documented examples of fictional references that impact perception of the myth itself, then they can be moved. But this article has none of that. Mintrick (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The answer is to choose a few good verifiable examples, move them to the article, and delete the rest as useless trivia. If they are important they will have their own article and can link to the Shinigami article.  If they are super-important then they can be in the article or under "See also".  Creating a rubbish bin (in the form of a popular culture article) isn't the answer.  Drawn Some (talk) 05:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced trivia. This sort of thing belongs on a fansite or something, not in an encyclopædia.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. I strongly oppose a merge due to the amount of data.  I always thought that WP:TRIVIA deprecated "foo in popular culture" articles, let alone sections in articles, unless there's something notable, inherently or otherwise. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments above (Lankiveil's and Dennis's). I share Mintrick's concern with dumping this trivia into the main article, but given how these popular things go, Drawn Some's answer will probably be followed, unfortunately, since editors contributing such references are often better at making lists longer rather than writing encyclopedically. Which reminds me: I need to check a batch of Old_Crow. Drmies (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and trim, popcultural references should appear in the main article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, trim, and source as this article has no references at all, and gives no reason why shinigami appearing in popular culture is a notable topic at all. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Unbounded and unsourced list bound together by the new and novel concept that Shinigami compose a significant part of popular culture. --Allen3 talk 06:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh Articles on Japanese folklore and the inevitable and self-inflating in popular culture sections of these are the reason why I stopped bothering with editing articles on Wikipedia. Somebody above said good examples from the article should be moved to the Shinigami article. I did that, over a year ago when the pop-culture stuff was still in the main article - I deleted heaps upon heaps of insignificant stuff, leaving some notable examples and left an invisible note to editors to carefully consider whether whatever they are thinking of adding is really notable. It didn't take long before the article section was back to the pre-trimming size, again full of completely unimportant info. Personaly, I'd like to see some carefully selected anime/manga references in Japanese articles, but from what I've seen so far, such sections demand at least one editor to constantly hover over the article, deleting unnecessary additions as they appear; and, dear god, they do appear. I don't have the energy to deal with the fanboys anymore, myself. I say follow the Tengu or Kitsune example and simply purge pop-culture from the articles and kill all "in popular culture" sections in the bud. I say delete. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with heavy trimming into Shinigami. That shinigami continue to appear in popular culture is an important aspect of the concept of shinigami (thus showing they are a "live" concept, so to speak), and that article would not treat the subject encyclopedically without discussing this with examples. Pending anyone finding scholarly articles on how concepts of shinigami have been treated in popular culture, that subject is not in itself notable and should not be an independent article. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge The articles will do better together, there is by no means too much material--since both the articles are basically primarily about the representations of this spirit in Japanese culture, I don't see the point in having the separate. DGG (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - should never have been split. completely arbitrary split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:11, 10 May 2009 (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.