Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winged Victory of Samothrace 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:18, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Winged Victory of Samothrace in popular culture

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Per WP:POPCULTURE, this is an unnecessary article spinout. The guideline itself says, "Attempt to pare the section down first. In some cases, the section is not so much a new article as it is just bloated." This is mostly just trivia and if pared down, can easily fit into the parent article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. This appears to be a perfect example of what an "in popular culture" article should be about—the influence of an important, well-known, or highly visible artifact that has widely influenced art, design, or aesthetics elsewhere.  WP:POPCULTURE discusses "passing" or "trivial mentions", such as a character on a TV show alluding to a subject that otherwise has no relevance to the plot, or a brief glimpse of something in the background, which likewise has no particular significance.  The fact that an ancient statue is widely copied for use in major venues, as an architectural icon, or a symbolic device, is the exact opposite of what WP:POPCULTURE is describing.  These are obviously not "passing" or "trivial mentions" such as those described on that page.  It's worth noting that while that page indicates that the same basic criteria apply to both sections and stand-alone articles, it also notes that sections of this type that become lengthy may be split off into separate articles.  That's what's happened here, where a lengthy set of seemingly valid examples of the sculpture's influence might become unwieldy as a section of the article about the sculpture itself.  "Paring it down" solely for the purpose of folding it back into the article about the sculpture seems to be again, the exact opposite of what WP:POPCULTURE is talking about.  I'll also note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE has absolutely no application here, and seems to have been thrown in solely because it sounds like it would apply.  This article isn't even related to what that guideline is talking about.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per P Aculeius's well written and reasoned comment, a joy to read. The well-sourced page reflects the cultural and important heritage of the original statue, and is similar to, and can take its place alongside of, List of The Thinker sculptures, Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, Replicas of Michelangelo's David, Replicas of Michelangelo's Pietà, and Mona Lisa replicas and reinterpretations. I've thanked the editor who created it, nice work. The nom quotes a guideline too often used to delete well-built and culturally important article entries. Hopefully not this time. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is contemptible garbage. What does it tell you about the sculpture? Nothing. It is a concatenation of pointless trivia. I wasn't going to express an opinion about keeping this, because keep it or delete it this fork was merely a way of flushing a lot of unencyclopedic nonsense from the parent article where it has no place. I optimistically thought that would be obvious. But if other editors are going to insist on duplicating this cruft in the main article then there is even less reason for keeping this fork.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you created this fork. I am really confused here if you are accepting the AfD. Was there any reason for the fork? I see it seems like a copy and paste from
 * A removal or trimming of the section hasn't been agreed upon? It wouldn't be hard to remove some of the content due to WP:INPOPULARCULTURE and specifically WP:IPCEXAMPLES. – The Grid  ( talk )  19:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was trying to avoid edit-warring on the parent article. Pop trivia is, I've learned from experience, something people are overly attached to and don't take kindly to being told is rubbish. The fact that this fork has been copy-pasted back into the parent article seems to vindicate my view, but has failed to solve the problem of getting rid of the stuff. And it is rubbish; it is a list of public sculpture and museum plastercasts along with a mention in a pop video and game. Naively I thought that its triviality would be self-evident when dumped into its own article, and that article would then be quietly deleted. Sorry if I've needlessly overcomplicated matters. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural delete (possibly qualifies under speedy A10) but allow recreation. This discussion is not actually about whether this is a legitimate topic or simply trivia, or whether the content is worth preserving, since the content was forked over from the parent article, and can still be found there. The split was apparently undertaken as an attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff (dumping all the garbage here), not because the parent article was deemed too big. Therefore, this AfD and extra article are just distractions from an editorial concern that should be resolved in the parent article's talk page. The nominator and Twospoonfuls are correct in classifying this as an indiscriminate listing of trivia with no actual discussion of the statue in popular culture, but this should be discussed in the appropriate place, not here. If it's decided there that the parent article is too unwieldy to hold all the information, then the nominated article can be recreated as a proper split. Avilich (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors who dislike In popular culture sections and entries should just not edit them, much less purposely try to remove them because of their dislike. Many other editors think they serve cultural record keeping and provide historical lineage and long-term and short-term effects on society. Rather than delete, expand and improve. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Expand and improve the parent article, and split only when it becomes unwieldy. What are you even complaining about? You restored what had been removed, and this extra article is just a pointless copy of that, as the author of the split himself stated. Nothing is actually being deleted. If you actually support improving this sort of stuff, you'll vote to delete this malformed split so that interested editors can focus their attentions on one single article. Avilich (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on editors wishing that it all goes away, parent and split. Yes, as long as they don't try to diminish the information at the main article this one could go. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the material in this article is of encyclopedic value, nor does it satisfy WP:POPCULTURE. Unless it was substantially rewritten then yes I would make the utmost effort to remove this material from the parent article. I admit I acted in bad faith in creating this article, and I still maintain that this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, but as a compromise I'd be willing to withdraw my vote if this stuff was kept out of the parent article.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 16:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant above, some editors dislike stuff like this intensely while others see great worth in it. Examples and replicas show how different societies and cultures throughout various eras reflect the artwork in their social fabrics. This is an honored and influential statue, and the information under discussion brings it forward in time. The other artwork replica pages above share the same function, as do all good "In popular culture" sections. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is a section on the WVoS's influence on later art that would contextualise the information. If you want to research and write that be my guest. What we've got is a list of random facts.That's not encyclopedic; a google search for "plastercasts of WVoS" could substitute for this article.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 17:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The replica at Caesars Palace is probably better known in North America than the original (although it lacks the ship's bow). Other replicas and images are well known. People who don't like these type of articles will find reasons why (and no, not all the known examples are made of concrete), and visa versa. The Caesars example alone adds value to keeping the concept (I noticed the Caesars Palace page doesn't have an image of Victory, so I'll go add it and see if it sticks). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   14:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is ultimately just a list of replicas of the original Winged Victory, written in prose form. However, there is no evidence of a WP:LISTN pass. Instead it has been collected through original research, and is really just a thrown-together collection of things-that-look-like-something. FOARP (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Regardless of whether or not the same material that is already on the main page of Winged Victory of Samothrace should be removed, cleaned up, or remain untouched, the simple fact remains that this specific spinout article is a completely unnecessary WP:SPLIT, and would not even serve as a useful search term for a redirect. The discussion on the appropriateness of the material on the main page can be held on its own talk page, but for this specific spinout article that is just a copy of what is already there, its a clear delete. Rorshacma (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2021 (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.