Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercingetorix in popular culture (2nd nomination)

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 there's a clear consensus that the material is not appropriate for a standalone. I will subsequently redirect as it appears that it could be a valid search term and there is some overlap in the material as per Rorshacma's !vote and those talking about searching. There's no indication the material is suitable for merging. Star Mississippi 15:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vercingetorix in popular culture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list since its inception, when it was split from the main article rather than just removed as unreferenced fancruft as proper policy would dictate. It remains mostly an example farm of any possible mention of the person in fiction. The folk hero stuff is already cited in the main article so I'm not sure there's anything else salvageable in the article that would merit a merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching scholar for strings like "Vercingetorix depictions" (not in quotes) yields 1, 2, 3. That's neither exhaustive, nor does it encompass most of the contemporary issues reflected in the list as it stands, but demonstrates that this is a notable topic and the list could, obviously, stand to be cleaned up. Further, INDISCRIMINATE does not mean what the nom says, but that's an ongoing issue. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a prime example of how not to do WP:IPC. This is indeed an INDISCRIMINATE collection of often unremarkable or trivial appearances (for example, appearing in a video game like Civ, where the role is entirely insignificant to the overall gameplay). The few that aren't, and likely those that are discussed by scholars (although, again, "depiction" could also refer to artistic depictions like a sculpture or a painting). The main article on Vercingetorix is short enough that there really is no need to split what little amount of actually encyclopedic content there is into this WP:Listcruft page. The topic being possibly notable doesn't mean A) that it necessarily needs its own page (WP:NOPAGE) nor B) that it is exempt from WP:NOT (it isn't, end of story). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only actual legitimately sourced piece of information currently in the article, from the Dietler article, is already present in the main article on Vercingetorix. The rest of the information is poorly sourced and extremely trivial. Many of the entries are not even, as the lead in states, times that he has "appeared in works of popular culture" but simply times his name was merely mentioned or used for something else. While the corresponding section on the main article could be filled out with prose information, it appears to be unlikely that the subject is extensive enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT, and as the only sourced piece of information that would be worth preserving is already in the main article, there is no real reason for this to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is slight possibility this could be rescued with sources found by Jclemens, but WP:TNT applies for now (given the article doesn't show the topic meets WP:GNG, plus the trouble with unreferenced WP:V failing TVTrope fancrufty style. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, trim, improve, or merge for the time being: As has been shown, secondary sources on the topic exist. Also see here, and I'd like to quote: "The last section, occupying the final sixty or so pages, is of a fundamentally different stamp. ... and the semiotic significance of Vercingetorix and allied images of Gauls in French art and more popular culture ... over the last two centuries is developed".
The current version is mostly lacking secondary sources to distinguish notable from non-notable examples. The existence of trivial examples has been remarked, but when for the case of Civilization Vercingetorix is a minor, we have Celtic King: Rage of War where, according to the web magazines, Vercingetorix' is one of the two main perspectives. And if you take the example of Asterix, we see that we do have more non-trivial examples. So it's all problems which can be solved by editing. In addition, examples like the festival in Alise-Sainte-Reine should be preserved, so I don't see that WP:TNT applies here. If one has problems with the current state, non-sourced examples can be removed until such time as someone puts in the work of checking for sources. That would lead to a temporarily stubby article, so I have no objections to a merge inbetween. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that even if there is some coverage about it, that doesn't necessarily always justify a page, especially if it can be covered in sufficient depth and detail on the parent article (WP:NOPAGE). On top of that, besides the TV-trope style fancruft listing, there isn't anything else to that page. The sources can be used to improve the relevant section on the main article, but there's no reason to keep this, which contains little useful information for that purpose anyways. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: "The sources can be used to improve the relevant section on the main article, but ..." Sounds exactly like an argument for a merge rather than delete to me. If we delete, both the sources that have been dug up and the information they reference is simply lost (except to admins), and can then no longer be used "to improve ... the main article". Daranios (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The useful sources are all listed at this AfD. The rest of the content is not useful as it is mere listcruft. You don't need it to start writing actual prose based o the sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: "The useful sources are all listed at this AfD." If you think so, I guess we disagree on if e.g. the examples of Asterix, Celtic King: Rage of War and the Alise-Sainte-Reine festival should have a place on Wikipedia or not; their sources are not listed here, but only in the article. Daranios (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of including in the main article. Jacona (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So... you mean merge then, right? Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Delete. The information may or not be included at Vercingetorix, but that is a discussion for that article.Jacona (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, you want to throw away content that might be reused elsewhere, rather than following protocols per WP:CWW? That's kind of WP:NOTHEREish, wouldn't you say? Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, virtually any vote for deletion of any article is nothere. Jacona (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Vercingetorix. He was a major figure in the Gallic resistance to Caesar, as recounted in his Gallic Wars. As such, there is a legacy, generated by French nationalism, seeking to treat him as an earlier nationalist and an anti-Roman. That is a legitimate topic to be included briefly in the main article. The equivalent in England is Boudicca and in Germany Herman. When I first edited WP (long ago) many articles had popular culture section, which collected up allusions to the subject of the article, in film, TV shows, literature, songs, etc. These sections were generally deleted en masse long ago. We should not encourage their reinvention. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator did a whole bunch of these a decade and a bit ago, and a whole bunch of them have been deleted or redirected, including Syrinx in popular culture (AfD discussion) and the inexplicable Clint Eastwood in popular culture (AfD discussion). Looking at how little the article has changed in 13 years, it seems that this is just more of the same. Asterix, the films, and whatnot are all in the main article's edit history at Special:Permalink/272466997#Popular culture. The statues are in fact still in the main article. The arguments about how there's a silly way and a sensible way to do this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vercingetorix in popular culture are compelling. 13 years on, we still have the silly way, largely unimproved, and have made no progress towards the sensible. Sweeping bad content under the rug into another article has never worked. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: "Asterix, the films, and whatnot are all in the main article's edit history". The corresponding secondary sources which are present here, and whose absence is often lamented, are not in the main article's history. Daranios (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm with Jacona on that. This content was removed because it was poor in the first place. There's no reason to think that Asterix belongs anywhere here at all. You would have been wiser to add your sources to List of Asterix characters#Historical figures, which is the place where the character in the comic actually belongs, and where it has been since 2008 before this bad article was even created. Lament that you didn't do it there, where it is still genuinely needed, not in this useless cargo-cult sweep-under-the-rug dump. Uncle G (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks proper sourcing and fails the WP:GNG. It's an original compilation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE examples instead of a WP:SUMMARY of what reliable sources have said. I wouldn't rule out an article about a similar topic, but there's nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2022 (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.