303:
search terms. "elements" is not a specific word. :However, 10 minutes work found "Narrative
Performance in the Contemporary Monster Story" by Daniel Punday in The Modern Language Review, Vol. 97, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 803-820 for which the excerpt in google scholar is 1/ "Contemporary theory, as well as popular culture, is clearly in sympathy with ... It stresses elements common to the entire cosmos: earth, water, fire, air; " (i think that's enough to show that the concept too is discussed. I didn't want to say Keep earlier until I had found at least something). There are related ones too 2/ "The Popular Art of Geomancy in the Medieval West and contemporary Asia" by L Braswell-Means - The Journal of Popular Culture, 1990 -" divination,’ is a form of divination associated with the Western Middle Ages, based upon signs derived from the elements: earth, air, fire, and water. and 3/ "Review: Record Reviews" Author(s) of Review: William Ivey in Western Folklore, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 269-273 "... it is this very failing which gives Songs of Earth, Water, Fire and Sky ... become increasingly adept at applying folkloristics to popular culture, modern country". I think this is enough to show that the literature exists and that it is sourceable, and i remind people that it just has to be sourceable to be kept, not have all the sources already there. . Obviously a proper essay will take a while, but an article does not have to be complete to escape being deleted.
195:
element use. It is a common theme in most media in some form or another, which can show greater information of the ideology of the media. Is it a western view or something more eastern? What is an element, is it just one of the cla ssical elements or something else? How does the idea of elemental forces link with the development of the media source? It shows that common themes tend to appear, like linking Ice with the element of Water. Perhaps this article just needs a better editor then me to bring it all together, still I see an articule like this appearing either here or with in the classical element page. If the latter, then it will cause a major expanse of that article which would just require it's own page in time. Perhaps if you give an idea what would make this articule better, I can correct it. Thanks.
334:. 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.
194:
as I am not sure that it should be deleted as it was created in responce to the listing of media sources of element use on the classical elements page. I think that the question is what represents an element for use in this article. Also it allows people to look up and compare the uses of the idea of
225:
I have been thinking that this might work better as a catergory rather then an article page. Linking media with uses of the theme of elemental power together for easier access. Then if someone is commenting on the themes of elements, one can look up different examples for use. Not sure if this is a
302:
as sources are available, see below. The reviews on many of the items will show that they talk about it to a significant degree. It is unrealistic to expect to be able to source something like this in 5 days. And finding articles on the general theme is a little tricky because of the lack of good
238:
I wouldn't have guessed from the title that this was about the Earth-Water-Fire-Air meaning of "classical elements". Looks like the article is going to get buried-drowned-burned-blown away on this one. Not a bad idea for an article, however: 16th
Century chemistry is 21st Century magic. I'll be
210:
the article 'Cultural impact of the classical elements'. Find sources and then write an article detailing how and why (in prose, and not prose that merely lists occurances) this philosophical idea has had an impact on western culture.
83:
78:
87:
330:. 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
70:
110:
327:
376:
354:
338:
314:
294:
255:
243:
215:
186:
174:
162:
146:
52:
17:
74:
66:
58:
394:
36:
393:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
346:
if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of
252:
126:
117:
Collection of trivial uses, conveying no information about popular perceptions. Unacceptable per
283:
155:
212:
171:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
278:, but I am not an expert on this topic. I also need to comment that this is another article
118:
287:
279:
275:
137:
122:
264:
369:
351:
347:
335:
240:
268:
323:
310:
141:
291:
227:
196:
183:
159:
49:
104:
373:
365:
305:
286:
lots of Pop-culture references, and I have requested it be discussed at
239:
the George
Foreman voter on this one. Save it to your hard drive.
140:
list that covers a huge array of topics in a loosely-connected way.
387:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
322:(without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of
206:
is never a good argument for keeping something. You could
331:
100:
96:
92:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
397:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
328:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Eyrian
226:better idea or a worse one. Comments?
204:First of all, 'better here than there
67:Classical elements in popular culture
59:Classical elements in popular culture
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
170:as non-notable and indiscriminate.
24:
284:a larger effort used to sort out
265:unreferenced original research
1:
48:, no consensus to delete. --
182:as another trivia article.--
129:19:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
414:
377:23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
355:07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
339:07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
315:09:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
295:21:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
256:18:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
244:23:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
216:03:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
199:10:18, 1 Augest 2007 (UTC)
187:00:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
175:22:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
163:21:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
147:20:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
53:20:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
230:9:29, 3 Augest 2007 (UTC)
156:indiscriminate collection
390:Please do not modify it.
344:Request to closing admin
32:Please do not modify it.
267:. Sadly, it is on a
276:possibly be improved
405:
392:
144:
108:
90:
34:
413:
412:
408:
407:
406:
404:
403:
402:
401:
395:deletion review
388:
142:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
411:
409:
400:
399:
382:
380:
379:
358:
357:
348:User:AndyJones
341:
326:and myself at
317:
297:
258:
253:Carlossuarez46
246:
233:
232:
231:
220:
219:
201:
200:
189:
177:
165:
149:
138:indiscriminate
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
410:
398:
396:
391:
385:
384:
383:
378:
375:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
356:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:User:Melsaran
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
307:
301:
298:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:that might be
277:
274:
270:
269:notable topic
266:
262:
259:
257:
254:
250:
247:
245:
242:
237:
234:
229:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
217:
214:
209:
203:
202:
198:
193:
190:
188:
185:
181:
178:
176:
173:
169:
166:
164:
161:
157:
153:
150:
148:
145:
139:
136:as a far-too
135:
132:
131:
130:
128:
124:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
389:
386:
381:
361:
343:
332:immediatists
319:
304:
299:
272:
260:
248:
235:
213:CaveatLector
207:
205:
191:
179:
172:CaveatLector
167:
151:
133:
123:WP:NOT#IINFO
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
300:Strong Keep
261:Weak delete
370:AndyJones
352:AndyJones
336:AndyJones
251:per nom.
241:Mandsford
282:part of
192:Objected
143:VanTucky
111:View log
292:Bearian
228:Hvulpes
197:HVulpes
184:JForget
160:Useight
119:WP:FIVE
84:protect
79:history
50:Visviva
374:Mathmo
288:WP:RFC
249:Delete
208:rename
180:Delete
168:Delete
152:Delete
134:Delete
127:Eyrian
88:delete
273:could
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
368:and
364:per
362:Keep
320:Keep
311:talk
271:and
236:Keep
121:and
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
46:Keep
366:DGG
306:DGG
263:as
158:.
154:as
109:– (
372:.
350:?
313:)
290:.
125:.
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
309:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.