Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Minotaur references 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minotaur references in popular culture[edit]

Delete - another "spot the reference" directory of loosely associated items. These things have nothing in common beyond a reference of greater or lesser triviality to a minotaur. This list tells us nothing about minotaurs, nothing about the fiction which references them, nothing about any relationship between them and nothing about the world. As always, oppose merging any of this trivia dump to any other article. Otto4711 13:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely associated topics with no analytical depth. --Eyrian 13:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a subpage of the talk page and keep. It is blindingly obvious that the article in chief on minotaur needs a section about minotaurs in popular culture. In its current state, it ignores minotaurs in Dungeons & Dragons, minotaurs in films, the Tauren in World of Warcraft, and many other facts that obviously belong. The list format is disliked by many: so be it. If so, though, the information ought to be preserved for the use of later editors. AfD is not cleanup, and forking out lists of cultural references so that they can then be proposed for deletion is no substitute for editing. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATRIV was made for a reason. Delete this along with all the other trivia articles in Category:In popular culture (as of typing, there are 120 other articles on Wikipedia like this). Spellcast 14:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even by its title it admits that it is nothing more than a list of references. Not the sort of thing an encyclopedia is for. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and improve with references, pictures, etc. all of these "in popular culture articles" per User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy. I'm concerned that a campaign to destroy these lists by a handful of Wikipedians is going to alienate who knows how many editors who contributed to making these fine additions to our project. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a reference guide. As an indiscriminate list of information that has little to do with the subject matter's impact on popular culture, delete along with all of the others. María (críticame) 15:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these random jottings are legitimate articles. Golfcam 16:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who has time to actullay sit around and think of this crap? Realkyhick 17:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:5 - trivia collection Corpx 18:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis. Copy and pasting arguments for deletion for every pop cult article w/o examining it individually is reckless abandon and not consistent with collaboration. The current Minotaur article describes the myth, then jumps to Picasso. Are we really saying that's it, there's no notable use or interpretation? What steps have been taken to evaluate the merits of the topic? Yes 95% of the bullets are crap. That's why they get shunned into standalone articles. But if 1% are good, you should keep the good. Some demonstration of due diligence by deletionists would go a long way to reassuring the undecided that babies are not getting thrown out with the bathwater Canuckle 22:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assuming that people aren't reading the articles? I certainly did. The notability of a few of the included points only underscores the need for better analysis, which a list of trivial mentions doesn't do.--Eyrian 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I assume? No evidence that there is a thorough reading. Just copy and paste of comment from previous AfD plus some "Kill them all" , "Who has time to actually sit around and think of this crap" enthusiasm. (I've been guilty of excessive humor too.) If better analysis for some of the notable items is required, we should look for it, not just delete wholesale.Canuckle 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles all tend to read pretty much alike. They're the same arguments because the all have the same problem. --Eyrian 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They many of them do have the same problem, the failure to recognize that this is an encyclopedia of what is notable about the world--and the references that are made from films and books and web sites to major cultural artifacts are part of what is notable about the world. They show the reception of the legend--the incorporation of it into general references and understanding. To deal with some of the arguments above;

they are not loosely associated--they are strongly associated through having have a common theme, and that's the subject of the article
analytical depth is not a requirement of WP--if it were there wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia left.
WP:ATRIV is merely a guideline,part of the manual of style. But let's actually read it, instead of just quoting the reference "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary." And it specifically deals with trivia sections -- the reference to in popular culture articles is just to an essay, and the supposed rule against this material does not exist.
"WP is not a reference guide" -- an encyclopedia is by its very nature a reference guide -- thats the very meaning of the word, the essence of what we're doing. Or at least some of us are.
"who has time to actually sit around and think of this crap?" well, the people interested in it do, and those who do not have time for it can leave it alone. They need not even waste the time of trying to remove it.

It all comes down to IDONTLIKEIT. I'm more tolerant of what I don't like. I don't like 9/10 of the cultural genres that are written about extensively here, and I see no need to ever learn anything about them. If I were organizing my own summary of world culture, I'd ignore them altogether. But they don't bother me here. To work in a project with this many other people of all sorts of interests means accepting all of their interests as reasonable. Nobody forces me to read it or to edit what I don't like. An online encyclopedia can incorporate all of it. DGG (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant to refer to WP:NOT#DIR. I apologize for mistyping. I highly contest the encyclopedic value of these references, however, and disagree with your view on this info not being loosely associated -- it is. A "common theme" does not mean that any Minotaur character in any -verse game or show or movie is somehow culturally important. It's listcruft, pure and simple, and although some people may find it WP:USEFUL, this does not make it encyclopedic. María (críticame) 00:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment agreed that some of the items on the list are not significant. There isn't a WP article that couldnt be improved by editing. Deletion is a last resort, per WP:Deletion policy. The rule you refer to in NOT DIR, is presumably "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" -- but none of the examples given there refer to lists like these. So that isnt relevant either. As for "loosely", see below. DGG (talk) 01:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, DGG, but these things are simply not strongly associated just because they refer to or have a minotaur in them. There is no association between, for instance, the minotaur members of the White Witch's army in Narnia and the minotaur that Wonder Woman fought during the Challenge of the Gods, to pick two items off the list more or less at random, and to claim that there is absent a reliable source is synthesis. It's easy enough to dismiss some of the concerns with this article by calling "essay!" and citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which by the way is from an essay) but all this hand-waving about how very tolerant you are does not address the policy concerns raised in the nomination. Otto4711 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment How are things strongly associated? they are associated by having a common creator, or a common basic subject, or a common major theme or character. Let's examine a few systematically from the top and see how many are significant: Borges's short story is about the exact subject, and so is Renault's novel specifically written about the legend the description in this list is inadequate). I don't know the books or stories by Danielewski or Gemmell or Sherrill or Sara Douglass or about 10 others, Some mentions are trivial--CSLewis, Some are using it in an important indirect way, like Hughes' poem. some like Dante are so important that even as a minor character its significant. The theme is Picasso's art is central to much of his work. I can't speak to the music and the games. As an example that the outide world recognizes thiswsort of thing as important, the Library of /congress has the subject headings , Minotaur (Greek mythology) -- Fiction. and Minotaur (Greek mythology) -- Children's Fiction. (according to WorldCat).DGG (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this entire article could be summarized in one line: "The Minotaur of Greek mythology is a common figure in pop culture". It's a classical reference -- there will be literally millions of allusions to this reference in culture. However, an article should not consist simply of a list of these mentions! Looking like, acting like, mentioning off-handedly, using as a metaphor are all loose connections; and virtually all of these peices of trivia fall into that category. Claiming that simply saying "oh, this talks about the Minotaur in some way" consists a non-trivial connection is absurd. --Haemo 01:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any subject can be trivialized when summarized in one line. . If there are millions of allusions, then surely the subject is important! So we should have an article assembling at least the most significant and best known ones. DGG (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete half credit for honesty in being a reference list, but there are apparently no WP:RSes that this "pop culture" phenomenon is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Haemo's comments above. Mleivo 05:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the references on this list appear to be a retelling of the myth of the Minotaur and the labyrinth. If you get rid of the anime' and comic books, and the passing references to a man with a bull's head (I'm NOT talking about anybody here, honest) this would work as "Minotaurs in Literature", which is less of a magnet than "pop culture". I can see why some people freak out over the "in popular culture" label, which does evoke visions of Buffy, Charmed, etc. For some reason, people who hate lists with a passion... have no problem with lists of episodes of Buffy, Charmed, etc. Take it down, clean it up, and make it a great article. Mandsford 00:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a new name makes little difference in this case, it's still trivia. Articles shouldn't be renamed during an AfD, especially when there's no consensus to rename. And there is no consensus to rename here. Crazysuit 21:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic trivia. IPSOS (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen some 'in popular culture' sections in articles and not always liked them, but this list is full of blue links and appears sensible. The entries without blue links could probably be dropped with no loss, but the rest seem OK. I'm aware of the arguments about synthesis but don't find them convincing. EdJohnston 01:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little or no depth, loose, and crufty. J-stan ^Talk 01:46, 31 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.