Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icarus imagery in contemporary films and television

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. Peacent 02:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icarus imagery in contemporary films and television

Delete - another directory of loosely associated topics. These isolated items, many of which rely on original research in deciding that the item is a reference to the Icarus myth, have nothing to do with each other past a supposed reference to the myth. They tell us nothing about the myth, nothing about the fiction from which the item is drawn,nothing about how they are related to each other and nothing about the world. Otto4711 12:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely associated topics with no analytical depth. --Eyrian 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another spot-the-reference list/article. Realkyhick 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note to closing admin: I'm not a member of the Kill Pop Cult Cult. I just don't see any item - not one - that is more than trivial.Canuckle 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to other editors as the "Kill Pop Cult Cult" smacks of incivility. Otto4711 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize. I thought it would be taken as humour and actually worried it might be taken up as a badge of honour. Canuckle 23:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was funny. No offense here. --Eyrian 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canuckle, the proper term is "very dedicated people". Eyrian has nominated 10 pop culture articles for today July 24, Otto only five. Canuckle, you and DGG and I (and others) have been equally dedicated in looking for diamonds in the rough. I think one of the folks here might have called me "Defender of crap" once (logged off to do it, out of concern that I'd get upset), and I took it as a badge of honor. Hey, I love the nominations. They're more efficient than clicking Random article to find what Wikipedia is all about-- the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Mandsford 01:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., you're right-- I've read the article and it sucks. Delete Mandsford 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article could have been made one line in the main article "Icarus imagery is common in popular culture". What followed that one line is a list of any possible mention of him in any context, or imagery associated with it. Yes, it's a classical reference -- virtually all of these will have thousands, if not millions, of allusions to them. An encyclopedia is not, however, supposed to make a great big list of the them all and pretend it's an article. --Haemo 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "imagery" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.