Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Metatron in popular culture

I actually don't think that the Dogma reference should in some way be included at Metatron, because its importance to that subject is minimal. The only way the information can be incorporated without encouraging further trivia is if it fits into a connected context. As a disconnected item, there must be a space for other disconnected items, namely, with this one. If incorporated into a paragraph with some kind of point and overall importance to the subject, it would be hard to add other trivia. But, and here is the important thing: what is the importance of the Dogma character to Metatron? I could find no sources in a brief web & book search that talk about Metatron mythology in modern times, so no one has written about it. But even if someone would write about it, what would they say? I think it would be a very hard case to make that the inclusion of Metatron in that movie is evidence that modern culture is generally aware of Metatron. Rather, I would say that Dogma was using the Metatron character because it fit the script, and the movie more introduced the angel to a broader audience than chose something out of cultural sensibility. Nor did the inclusion of Metatron in Dogma influence our perceptions of Metatron especially, it seems to have been a one-off choice of a character. But even if these points were reasonable and could be argued, someone else would have had to do it for us to consider including it in the encyclopedia (per WP:OR). Even THEN, I don't think it's especially critical that the Metatron article talk about whether or not this particular character is well-known in modern times... and if it does, I would think the best way to handle it would be with a single adjective somewhere in the lead without further expansion.

It's a question of why that piece of information is important. I think there's a very good argument that it's somewhat important to Dogma, but to Metatron, it's not very important. A lot of trivia information is of this type: information connecting A and B that is important to B but not A, yet is presented in relation to A. Such information can be properly incorporated only in an article about B... yet there seems to be strong, constant desire to present this kind of information in relation to A, despite its lack of relevance/importance to A.  Mango juice talk 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I've been working on an essay on this: see User:Mangojuice/Trivia. Mango juice talk 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your detailed response. Your argument (above and in the essay) is very convincing and I agree with most of what you've written.  However, I am not sure whether it provides a comprehensive solution to the issue of what to do with trivia: most trivia is not desirable, yet information that is presented as trivia should not always be discarded if it is relevant and can be incorporated into the text sometime in the future.  As I see it, you propose four solutions:
 * A separate list that explains the relevance of the connection to the topic for each case. Except for truly iconic subjects, such a list will not be possible as there will (at most) be only one or two things that are truly worthy of mention.
 * Categorisation. Quite honestly, I didn't quite understand this part and am not sure how it would work without overpopulating categories.
 * What links here. Although this is a useful approach (that I myself occasionally use), it has a potential deficiency: the "what links here" link becomes less useful the more an article is linked to as it provides no discrimination between connections that are significant and largely trivial mentions (e.g., linking a person's biography to Paris).
 * See also sections. This option appeals to me, but also has a limitation: beyond about 10 links, the "See also" section starts to become cluttered.
 * I believe your essay as to what sorts of trivia do and do not belong on Wikipedia is a good one, but do not know if it adequately addresses how this problematic issue can be handled in a comprehensive manner. I hope the points I've raised above aid you in developing the essay.  I am sorry that I cannot at this time offer more constructive suggestions as to alternate means of handling trivia in addition to the (itself admittedly problematic) idea I mentioned in the AFD: monitoring, coupled with strict requirements for sourcing.
 * In any case, I do not oppose the deletion of this particular "in popular culture" list per WP:TRIV, which it most certainly fails (I am hesitant to suggest that it qualifies on the basis of WP:NOT). In theory, the "Dogma" reference could be incorporated into a section titled "Metatron in popular culture" as long as this section consists of prose and analysis and is not a list.  However, I don't think Metatron is a sufficiently prolific character that such a section could be written without delving into original research.  Perhaps that last bit itself is the best justification for not having such a section (or article) for Metatron.  Cheers, Black Falcon 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)