Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture (second 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 Delete. Jersey Devil 22:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Swastikas in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was previously deleted through AfD. A DRV consensus overturned. Please consider the matter afresh. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions.   IZAK 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any appearance of anything that in the unattributable opinion of any random editor looks like it might possibly be similar in shape to a swastika, with no regard to the importance or triviality of the appearance in the fiction from which it's drawn or the real world. The arguments in favor of keeping it were largely centered around the notion that it was better to have this trivia in its own article than have it fouling the featured article Swastika, which argument is not compelling. In addition to these issues, the article is redundant to Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century, which while it still has some problems is a far superior article and actually restricts itself to appearances of the actual swastika and not manji or nonsense like runway patterns or comic book throwing stars or XFL team logos that are falsely labeled. Otto4711 18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment FYI the manji (Buddhist swastika) is derived directly from the Hindu swastika and has the same cultural and religious significance. Otto4711 is painting with too wide a brush here. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Manji makes it pretty abundantly clear that the two symbols are not the same. Otto4711 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You really have no idea what this is about, do you. You're certainly free to be ignorant, but there's no need for you to impose on others. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. (link reminders, these are not on the article talk age, there may be older AfD's also) -- Stbalbach 18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First nomination: Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture
 * Nomination review: Deletion review/Log/2007 March 4


 * Delete. A fully developed version of this would be as overlong and ridiculous as Crosses in popular culture, while this seems to be a pretty indiscriminate collection of information. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only purpose this article can have is to show some swastikas around. There is no encyclopedic relevance. Alf Photoman  21:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a separate concept which can be independently researched or discussed.  There is nothing you can say about the topic of swastikas in popular culture except what's already in the main article.  It's a fundamentally unfinishable and unmaintainable list.  The primary reason given for the creation of the page (and in the article's defense in the prior discussions) was to keep the junk from overwhelming the primary article.  Hiding the problem on a separate page does not solve the problem or somehow make bad content better.  A few examples are appropriate in the main article.  Attempting to create comprehensive lists are not.  Encyclopedias are not concordances.  Rossami (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, an indiscriminate list including some of the most trivial appearances of the swastika imaginable, along with patterns and designs that only vaguely resemble swastikas. Krimpet 05:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep meaningful, interesting topic. Some cruft should be removed. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING is not a compelling argument for keeping. Otto4711 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the real problem here is that I pointed out your ill-informed reasoning. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the real problem is that "it's interesting" is not a reason for keeping an article. All sorts of things are very interesting but not encyclopedic. Otto4711 05:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete in popular culture The way to deal with crufty "in popular culture" sections that get too big is to prune them, not to expand them into whole pages of 100% cruft and no article. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no policy against articles like this, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is a Featured Article. What specific concerns did you have for wanting to delete this article? -- Stbalbach 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of policies against unattributable inciscriminate collections of information, policies against POV inclusion of information and policies against original research. Otto4711 05:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Guy, and what Guy wrote, as his rationale for deleting the article. -- Stbalbach 16:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm unaware of any rule that says I can't respond to your statements regardless of to whom they were initally addressed. Otto4711 22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL I did not say you broke a "rule". I already know your position and have responded to it elsewhere in the past. I was addressing what Guy wrote. -- Stbalbach 22:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete (or Redirect to Swastika) as the title itself violates WP:NPOV creating a "pro-swastika" presentation. The article could easily have been called Abuse of the swastika or Swastika distortions. How about Bellybuttons in popular culture or Dictators in popular culture etc ? IZAK 05:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Clean up I agree that the article looks similar to what Crosses in popular culture would look like but I don't think it is beyond repair. If the list was organized by types of uses instead of the media it appeared in it could have some value.  For example, if there was a section on "accidental swastikas" that had no intended meaning at all but people got worked up over is encyclopedic especially if the company later removed it. There are also many "misunderstood swastikas" which the author intended a  manji meaning, listing them also has value. Many of the others on the list which are simply a reference to nazism should be removed ("In American History X, lead character Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), a white supremacist, has a swastika tattooed on his chest.") Jon513 10:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Jon513, I think if this article has any hope for survival it will need to be cleaned up right away, in the next few days, before the AfD closes. As it stands there seems to be little support to keep it. A serious attempt to clean it up now would give it a chance of survival, because even if the closing admin deletes it, it could be put up for review and restored, based on the fact it had been cleaned up late in the AfD process, after most of the votes had been cast. But if no one cleans it up before the AfD closes, it will be too late. How long would it take to clean up? -- Stbalbach 19:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Swastika. Or delete.  I prefer redirect because this might be useful as notes on an actual article, so it would be good to preserve the revisions somewhere.  However, I think that unless someone actually makes this an article and nukes the list of trivia by the time this AfD ends, we've given it enough time as a trivia article.  Mango juice talk 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Mangojuice. I suggested a "highly selective merge" in the previous AfD, but there is really no point to such a small merge or even to argue a "merge" this late in the discussion.  Yes, technically one good argument can outweigh a thousand poor ones, but I'm not a Spartan warrior and AFD is not the Battle of Thermopylae (and let's not forget what actually happend to the Spartans at that battle ...).  As written, the article cannot stand.  -- Black Falcon 19:21, 14 March 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.