Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werewolves 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 List of werewolves. And/or to Werewolf fiction. Consensus is that three articles about more or less the same topic is at least one too many (WP:CFORK). What content to merge (if any), and where to is up to interested editors.  Sandstein  16:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Werewolves in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Almost entirely unsourced and rampant listcruft that fails WP:LISTN. The page werewolf fiction has the prose aspects of werewolves in popular culture, so this page is entirely unnecessary and was merely a misguided attempt to split off the crufty aspects of said page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Video games, Comics and animation,  and Games.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep We have a list of werewolves however it doesn't include all famous/notable works that had werewolves in them. Just prune this list of any entry without a link to its own article providing that either the werewolf or the work it was mentioned in was notable by Wikipedia standards.   D r e a m Focus  09:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was exactly the usual article formation process, per Special:Diff/586038821 and Special:Diff/586038864, and there's very little in 9 years that wasn't in the original article per Special:Diff/586049643/1074082386, and no analysis being added to the pile of raw mentions. However, when my first thought was "Where on Earth were the werewolves in Prince Caspian?" and I went to find out, I found this:
 * And then this:
 * So on the one hand, this is another pile-on grab-bag of mentions with zero analysis or knowledge to impart, we wouldn't lose anything worthwhile by deleting it because it was mostly in the edit history of the original article, and what little has been added since isn't properly sourced; and on the other hand clearly the werewolf fiction article without at least some of what can be found in the good quality literature on this subject, which it currently lacks comparing the article to the books (contrast what the books say about Prince Caspian just for starters) is fairly bad too. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is a WP:FORK of Werewolf fiction. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:47, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources Uncle G found, and cleanup through normal editorial processes per WP:DINC. A merge to werewolf fiction is not appropriate, because while they may overlap to a great extent, there's more to popular culture than fiction, and that's all I'm going to say on that. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally everything in the article, besides the most absolutely ancient works, pertains to fiction. This hypothetical article does not exist, but any information could simply be added to werewolf instead of requiring a totally separate article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Any sources that could be added to make this articles less indiscriminate would be better placed in Werewolf fiction. Everything else doesn't seem worth saving. Cakelot1 (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of werewolves and trim of unreferenced, non-notable entries in the process. The sources found above as well as the the article Werewolf fiction show that this topic does not fail WP:LISTN. I do agree, however, on the point that "everything in the article, besides the most absolutely ancient works, pertains to fiction", so I don't see a reason to have two separate lists for werewolves outside of and within popular culture. I think those should be combined. Such a list does have a function, as it can list notable or referenced werewolf characters or works about such characters beyond what's in Werewolf fiction. Daranios (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune. Remove all entries without a bluelink.  Eventually, remove all entries without a secondary reference that shows the inclusion of a depiction of werewolves was notable, and not the subplot to chapter 5 of a forgotten hack-and-slash fantasy novel from 1983.  That said, the idea is valid enough, although ideally there would be a brief summary of what was "interesting" about the depiction of werewolves.  SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello SnowFire, I am struggling to see how this is separate to Werewolf fiction. Which of the entries are not in fictional works? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep but prune. This is a list that would need its own article separate from the main werewolf fiction article, even if we were to limit this to just the works where there is substantial coverage and a blue link. That said, this list does need to be pruned down. I'd say to limit any mentions to those where there's coverage of some sort. I do think it'd be worthwhile to add entries where the work is notable enough for its own article but the werewolves may not be mentioned in secondary coverage, as long as the work explicitly identifies them as werewolves. This would still limit the amount of entries that can be added, as there are a lot of works where the creator never actually identifies werewolf-esque creatures as werewolves - sometimes as a very deliberate act. I'm fine with limiting them to secondary sources, though. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One small note: I'm going through and trying to help prune. I'm adding sourcing for those entries which don't have an article but seem like they should be notable. I'd say leave the entries that have enough sourcing to establish notability per NBOOK or the other respective guideline. That's the only exception I'd say for that rule, although offhand I'd say that the ones that do have enough notability would probably be fairly slim. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to merge or delete as long as it's OK to recreate this in a more reasonable format than what we currently have. I didn't fully appreciate the comments about how indiscriminate this list truly is until I started performing cleanup. This list is including anything that even whispers the name werewolf and as such, is pretty unwieldy. There's no context here either, so it's not much better than a defacto category page. This should definitely be merged with the article on werewolves in fiction and turned into a general page. I'd prefer the general title of pop culture, but fiction might still be doable since it would certainly limit the amount of content that could be added. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * One small note: I'm going through and trying to help prune. I'm adding sourcing for those entries which don't have an article but seem like they should be notable. I'd say leave the entries that have enough sourcing to establish notability per NBOOK or the other respective guideline. That's the only exception I'd say for that rule, although offhand I'd say that the ones that do have enough notability would probably be fairly slim. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to merge or delete as long as it's OK to recreate this in a more reasonable format than what we currently have. I didn't fully appreciate the comments about how indiscriminate this list truly is until I started performing cleanup. This list is including anything that even whispers the name werewolf and as such, is pretty unwieldy. There's no context here either, so it's not much better than a defacto category page. This should definitely be merged with the article on werewolves in fiction and turned into a general page. I'd prefer the general title of pop culture, but fiction might still be doable since it would certainly limit the amount of content that could be added. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are going to attempt this task, bearing in mind the comments about the length and uselessness of the lists, note that the thematic breakdown in is not category of fiction but:
 * adolescence and lycanthropy as puberty
 * subversion of gender stereotypes
 * sexual attraction
 * lycanthropy as race
 * disability and difference
 * addictive behaviour
 * spirituality
 * actually has a breakdown that is similar in parts, although Mann is addressing this as folkloric cycles. Mann's chapter 4, "Hounds of Love", deals with sexual attraction, for example.  Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll keep that in mind, but right now I'm just removing the ones that are non-notable. Cleanup will have to be in stages, honestly. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Something else to keep in mind is that is definitely right in that there are a lot of different ways to address this topic. It's also good to keep in mind that this also isn't limited to fiction as a rule. Werewolves are kind of pervasive in pop culture and do show up in ways outside of fiction - both real and not real. For example, medical conditions and commercials. There's cultural perspectives to consider - not mythology but like werewolves in modern culture. I can't remember the exact song, but an example would be this Japanese song that warned women that "men are wolves". That doesn't really fit into the realm of fiction. I do think that the page needs a big overhaul, but at some point there will be a list that would likely need to be somewhere. The ideal would be for it to turn into a page similar to Titanic in popular culture. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak delete per WP:TNT. It shouldn't be in list form. The current form is way too long and uninteresting to the point readers will leave after a few scrolls. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Werewolf fiction and this article should be combined with some better article title. Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as a blue linked list that aids navigation, no valid reason for deletion in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, with no prejudice to this being recreated in the proper prose format. In the past year+, me and User:TompaDompa have rewritten a number of articles, previously in the list format, into prose, but dozens remain in this sorry, WP:OR, list state, which sadly has next to zero redeeming quality. Most of the entries there are arbitrary and unreferenced, and let's face it, this is a list that likely fails WP:NLIST (list of works about werewolves). I refer to cases of Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction or Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, which were "kept" after a complete rewrite, or Articles for deletion/List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (2nd nomination) which was deleted as it was not rewritten from the tv-tropish collection of trivia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as this closes with the consensus that it can come back once it's in proper format, I'm good with that. The more I clean, the more frustrated I'm getting with how this article is laid out and the inclusion threshold. It's honestly not that far off from that XKCD joke about wood in popular culture. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol. I'll have to remember that joke... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm totally in the merge camp for this with werewolf fiction. This needs to be judiciously pruned down and I'd also recommend that we limit list inclusion to only those works that fit the following guidelines:
 * The work is notable enough to merit an article. If no article exists then there should be copious amounts of coverage to establish that the work would warrant its own article. An author or creator having an article wouldn't be enough. That would cut the list down to a third of what it is now.
 * The werewolf is a prominent character of aspect in the work.
 * There must be sourcing that identifies the character/aspect as a werewolf or lycanthropy. Shape-shifting should not be included as this is far too nebulous. This means that even if the shapeshifter can transform into a werewolf, it wouldn't fit under this list unless there's a lot of coverage discussing this in werewolf territory.
 * This doesn't mean that the work can't be mentioned in the prose, but the general gist would be that they'd have to be notable enough for an article to justify inclusion in the list. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who rewrote an AfD'd list to prose (United Nations in popular culture), let me state for the record that prose is neither mandatory nor encouraged by any policy or guideline on this matter. It is simply your personal preference. With that being said, a companion prose article can be written in parallel to this list (which has mainly navigational purposes). Your WP:OR concerns (in reality WP:V concerns) are WP:SURMOUNTABLE, since WP:PRIMARY#3 allows the use of primary sources for straightforward assertions, such as if a werewolf are present in a given work., could you flag within the article which elements need citations with Template:Citation needed or Template:OR? Pilaz (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It doesn't matter that we can source some stuff to primary sources, if it is not notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what exactly is indiscriminate? Because your OR concerns seems to notability concerns (WP:LISTN that you mentioned above). What this article needs is a "further reading" section that complies with LISTN's "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Let me see if I can WP:FIXIT today with academic sources and the ones proposed above. Pilaz (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Prose is in fact encouraged. MOS:POPCULT, PRIMARY doesn't allow articles consisting entirely of primary sources, which is what lists of this sort do. Avilich (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear from this discussion (which is at WP:CR) that MOS:POPCULT only applies to trivia sections and not to articles such as this one, as every person who has written MOS:POPCULT has declared. Pilaz (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The only thing people agree is that a list, per definition and common sense, should be in bullet or table format. But unless you want to move this to a list and then have this discussed with WP:NLIST, what we have here is a prose topic of likely notability, but written in a WP:TNTable bullet point format. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand your last comment (or it's not about MOS:POPCULT). Maybe you meant to reply to my other nested comment above? Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, "regardless of where the material appears". Avilich (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe "regardless of where" refers to the two cases mentioned in MOS:POPCULT, of either "in its own section" or "with other prose". (As MOS:POPCULT in general does not talk about stand-alone list for navigation purposes, as has already stated.) Daranios (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's in another paragraph, from which the quoted excerpt doesn't pick up. Items can be listed either sections or separate articles, where you put them is a purely technical and irrelevant detail that has no bearing on their function and in the spirit of the guideline that covers them. Avilich (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that reading. It's in the same section, preceding paragraph, so I still think that that refers to that. Your interpretation would mean that "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" should never be presented in list format, and I can hardly believe that's the intention. Also, the difference can be more than technical, if for a stand-alone list the function is navigation, and within an article it's elucidation of the topic's impact. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * . Not something I ever said, I believe. You're of course right about functions, but this one in particular doesn't serve any function other than listing every single fictional topic in which werewolves are mentioned, which runs afoul of the spirit of POPCULT, regardless of what you think of its applicability. The deletion of "UN in popular culture" and its recreation as prose, along with the work of TompaDompa and Piotrus, are all results of POPCULT being applied broadly, and their successful nature imo confirm that the section vs. article distinction has no use or justification. Avilich (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "doesn't serve any function other than listing every single fictional topic in which werewolves are mentioned": That there is a problem with the threshold of inclusion in the current form of the list has been variously acknowledged, including by me. However I do believe that that is a problem that can be solved by editing, maybe along the lines already outlined by . And then, in an improved form, I believe such a list can serve a navigation function of where the topic of werewolves notably appears to the interested reader, which goes beyond what's in Werewolf fiction. Daranios (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep but make it a table and not "bulleted list" format. LockzZ (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of werewolves, and prune only disputed content, to avoid indiscriminate deletion of valuable information which can be easily verified upon request. Strong opposition to deletion. I have read all of the discussion above, the article, looked for additional academic references from established publishers, created a bibliography section, and I am aware of the existence of the articles werewolf fiction and List of werewolves. There are three major issues that need addressing (and that have been raised in this discussion): #1 whether Werewolves in popular culture is a WP:CFORK of werewolf fiction and/or list of werewolves; #2 whether this information should be presented in list form; #3 and whether the list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, violates WP:NLIST, and/or WP:OR/WP:V.
 * 1) Is Werewolves in popular culture a CFORK of...
 * 2) ... werewolf fiction? No. Werewolf fiction needs the list article to point to the exhaustive list of works about werewolves, since it cannot realistically discuss every work due to size constraints and the fact that many aren't covered in secondary sources. Similarly, the list article needs the prose article to discuss them (if it discussed them, it would no longer be a list). As long as the list article doesn't do the job of the prose article (doesn't engage in commentary, analysis, etc), then they are mutually beneficial to one other, to our readers, and to our editors. If you delete one, you should expect spillover from the deleted one to the kept one.
 * 3) ... list of werewolves? Yes. They are both lists that serve the same purpose. Fundamentally, both cover fictional representations of werewolves in popular media. A merge is required.
 * 4) Should this information be presented in list form? Yes. A list serves useful navigational purposes, allows itself to be exhaustive if it complies with WP:LISTN and is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and it gives breathing space to werewolves in fiction to do a proper prose analysis without being overly inclusive. Delete one or the other, and expect the worst of both worlds into one place. We have ICBMs and list of ICBMs (even though some items don't have their own articles), but is it a sufficient reason to delete or prune the latter list?
 * 5) Is this list compliant with...
 * 6) ...WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Yes. At the time of my writing, this argument has not been substantiated to merit a discussion. Will amend if it evolves.
 * 7) ...WP:NLIST? For the most part. Looking at the bibliography section I added, as well as the "further reading" section of werewolves in popular culture, we can satisfy its requirements (the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.) for literature    ; film ; television ; music ; video games ; anime and manga ; as well as folktales (not in the list) . Categories that miss in-depth coverage: (non-manga) comics, (non-anime) cartoons. There are some excerpts here and there about comics (There was a long footnote about werewolves in Marvel comics, but I'm excluding it since it's only a footnote). I wouldn't oppose pruning the comics and cartoons list if they aren't covered by any work on werewolves.
 * 8) ...WP:OR/WP:V? Yes. OR concerns are unsubstiated, and WP:V concerns can be sourced to the secondary sources mentioned above, and failing that to their own primary sources in virtue of WP:PRIMARY#3, which expressly allows to use primary sources to make non-controversial, factual and verifiable assertions regarding the presence of werewolves in a particular work.


 * Verdict: the undisputed content of the article should be kept and merged into list of werewolves to address the WP:CFORK concerns. A merge discussion should be in-depth regarding what should be moved. Special thanks to for linking some of the literature above. Pilaz (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge selectively into List of werewolves (or just delete). There is surely no need for Werewolf fiction, List of werewolves, and Werewolves in popular culture. Pilaz makes a compelling case that List of werewolves could be improved with a selective merge of some of this material, which would therefore be worthwhile. If no one is interested in carrying out that work, I don't think much would be lost in a straight delete. ~ L 🌸  (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per above user. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per above users. PerryPerryD 15:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to werewolf fiction as a WP:CONTENTFORK that fails WP:LISTN, per nom. There are three spinouts from only one notable topic, and deletion would be valid. But a fair compromise is to cover it in prose at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect Articles like these almost invariably fail WP:IINFO and MOS:TRIVIA. The topic of "fictional works that mention werewolves" also probably doesn't qualify as a notable grouping under NLIST, though "werewolves in fiction", which is a different thing, probably meets GNG from the sources presented above. It's hard to see the purpose of a merge or even a redirect here, since the article has basically no prose content that can be recycled, and the sources above imply that someone can remove the redirect and start over again. The best course of action here is probably to delete and rewrite as prose, as was done with "Far future in fiction" and "UN in popular culture" recently. Avilich (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Important to have a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2022 (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.