Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will-o'-the-wisps 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 No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 19:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will-o'-the-wisps in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, best summarized as "wisps sometimes appear in fiction, often as glowing balls", with no trace of analysis. All references are merely links to primary source material where the mention is made. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Requesting analysis in this context would be rather problematic -- would you want a Wikipedian commence original research into the topic? Digwuren 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that when people create an article, that they consult secondary sources from which to construct the text. --Eyrian 18:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete and I actually petition that this deletion be bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Will-o'-the-wisps in computer games. My rationale is the same. CaveatLector^Talk 22:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator did not carefully think out reasons for deletion or present a good case for deletion. Plus it appears to be flirting with breaking WP:POINT due to the sheer nature of AFD's of this nature listed all at once. Just because an article is dealing with popular culture does not mean it has to be deleted. If anything, the opposite is more likely to be true. Due to the nature of popular culture an article to do with it would tend to have more potential references in the popular culture than others would have. Mathmo ^Talk 00:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The only editor violating WP:POINT is yourself, as you have pasted the same "keep" argument (or rather, lack of argument) in numerous AfDs without even referring to the actual articles. Crazysuit 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIR of any mention of "Will-o'-the-wisps" in books, music, etc. Crazysuit 02:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A list of mentions isn't very notable or useful here. RobJ1981 07:46, 1 August 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 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete the above comment has been repeated so many times that it has inspired most of us to actually look at the article we are talking about, so I thank you. May the same negative example of bad IPC articles carry over to inspiring others to make such articles better. In this case, while I appreciate the author's obvious hard work, the lsit suffers from the problem of trying to throw in everything. Not a Wikipedia principle, but an article should be at least half as fun to read as it was to write. Mandsford 01:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a decent list, this is part of a mass nomination, and not all "in Popular Culture" articles are inherently bad. Squidfryerchef 05:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Will-o'the-wisp is a creature of popular culture; why is the part of popular culture known as "folklore" more important than modern popular culture?--Prosfilaes 13:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced list. The cruft needs to be sorted from the list. This article could use the Atkins diet, but kept. Bearian 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Will-o'-the-wisp, naturally. As there is absolutely no scientific proof of the existence of Wills-o'-the-wisp, all mentions of the phenomenon are effectively "popular culture", if not "popular delusions". RandomCritic 03:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why someone would want to delete this. Trivia? The image of a will-o'-the-wisp is an important one in folklore, whether or not it's scientifically verifiable. The entry I'm concerned with, for example, is part of a piece -- it might be considered the central piece -- of a ballet by a significant musician, Manuel de Falla. Assuming that lists of appearances of images, metaphors, and phenomana are considered kosher to Wikipedia, why would lists of this image not be? If you feel individual entries in the list are trivial, then argue that. Otherwise, leave it up to the adults that use Wikipedia.-user Friarslantern

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.