217:
of them deal with them plot or setting over a range of topics, or with reception and popular culture specifically. Less than a third deal with the traditional author-based topics or discussions centered around the details of a single specific work. People did not discuss these things much 50 years ago, but WP is not a 1960 edition of the
Brittanica. Probably should be rewritten in a more paragraph based fashion, and some of the items removed, but those are just editing decisions. We do not delete articles because they could have perhaps been better organized differently. It's time to recognize that the world does include this sort of topic, that it is notable, that with work it can be documented--and stop bringing these nominations. those who think the articles inadequate -- and I do not really blame them -- should start to work on improving them.
332:
literature about movies, every individual object included is taken as a deliberate inclusion by the director and analyzed for its purposes, so actual references may indeed talk about it. This is the way that art form works. I agree that in many cases it may be unimportant--a monster in a game may be named without any great thought simply because other games have similar monsters--but this is an editing question. And even if your concept is correct here, it is still no reason to delete this or any other article.
178:- as is almost always the case with these "...in pop culture" articles, what we have here is a list seeking to capture every time something, no matter how vaguely, makes some reference to the Cthulu mythos or something that in the unsourcable opinion of whatever editor spots it is such a reference. Indiscriminate list and directory rife with original research. "It mentions Cthulu or something that I think sounds kind of like Cthulu" is not a theme.
247:
Lovecraft mentioned in the
Cthulhu mythos does not create an encyclopedic relationship between it and every other thing that contains a similar passing reference. Lists of in-jokes are not encyclopedic when they're from a standalone series (see recent deletions of indiscriminate lists of such jokes from Seinfeld and Friends, among others). Lists of in-jokes that span series are just as unencyclopedic.
282:
in its own independent right, to multiple notable works, each of them notable in its own respective independent right, that this altogether is a notable relationship, and the individual pairings appropriate content as sentences or listings within such a comprehensive article. To illustrate, I do not think an article by itself on the subject of
281:
saying that the mention of a particular thing in a particular work is enough to make the thing, the work, or the specific pairing notable enough for an article, which is what WP:N is talking about. WP:N does not talk about content. I am saying that the relationship of a notable thing which is notable
246:
which clearly states that a one-sentence mention in a larger volume does not constitute anything other than trivial coverage. A one-line mention in a two hour film or multi-episode television series is just as trivial. The passing inclusion of a thing that may or may not be named after something that
216:
as per Father goose. The subject matter and settings of fiction is a notable topic. And it is now firmly established by consensus that popular culture is not necessarily or usually trivia. I just did a quick scan of the university press books published last week on literature--more than two-thirds
331:
In general, if there are such mentions, they could be proposed for removal in editing, but it is no reason to delete the article entirely--in this case, most of the items are ones where the theme or background or significance is major--indeed, sometimes central. But in the the academic and critical
392:
Regardless of how unsourced or trivial individual individual entries may be, I fail to see how an article like this would not be justified, considering the immense influence that the
Cthulhu mythos has had on certain fiction and popular culture at large. AfD is for articles that shouldn't exist at
308:
OK, but see, the thing is, you have this tendency to elevate any passing mention of something to the level of "theme" and it just ain't so. A work that includes, for instance, mention of a character passing a store that has the same name as something from
Lovecraft doesn't mean that the trivial
241:
of a thing qualified as either "subject matter" or "settings." You have this weird idea that the simple reference to a thing makes a work in some way about that thing or makes the thing a theme of the work containing the reference and it just is not so. See for example
119:
This is simply a cluttered trivia collection of any mention to
Cthulhu Mythos. Just because something is in popular culture, doesn't automatically make this type of list notable. Also, Knowledge (XXG) isn't a directory.
436:
I've removed the uncited parts, but still the only parts that actually have citations are either citing the webpages of myspace bands, webcomics and imdb. Still should be deleted, although at least now it isn't such a
194:
112:
85:
80:
89:
72:
290:
justifies a WP article by itself, but it is relevant content--and when 50 or so notable sf & fantasy novelists use the theme, then it does become notable.
260:
If that's the case, then you should advocate paring back the list to significant instances and mentions (of which there are several), instead of deleting it.
141:
76:
17:
490:
469:
448:
427:
404:
376:
363:
357:
343:
318:
301:
268:
251:
228:
208:
182:
170:
146:
124:
68:
60:
54:
388:
In and of itself, "Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture" is certainly an important and notable enough topic to deserve an article.
508:
36:
237:
A lot of your research into what the various university presses are covering would be much more relevant if the mere
478:
460:. An article about the influence of Cthulhu Mythos would be a valid subject, but this is just a list of trivia.
417:
163:
507:
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
261:
465:
412:
and recreate when someone actually writes something about Cthulu in popular culture instead of a list of
135:
155:
413:
314:
486:
461:
399:
265:
167:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
204:
159:
445:
424:
390:
Whether the current article as it stands is good or not is not the topic of this debate.
243:
373:
339:
310:
297:
248:
224:
179:
121:
49:
158:, and characterizing it as a "directory" is not borne out by anything stated within
482:
394:
133:. That's a lot of trivia, but whether it's worth an article is dubious. No vote.--
106:
200:
442:
421:
287:
334:
292:
219:
283:
501:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
393:
all, not articles that need improvement, no matter how large.
372:
I do not think "discriminate" means what you think it means.
355:
as it is a discriminate and referenced list. Sincerely, --
162:. However, it might be a good candidate for merging with
102:
98:
94:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
511:). No further edits should be made to this page.
195:list of Comics and animation-related deletions
309:Lovecraftian mention is a theme of the work.
8:
193:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
420:should probably be added to this. -
477:as a cited article, or merge with
24:
69:Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture
61:Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture
154:. Nomination is in the vein of
1:
491:01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
55:05:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
470:19:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
449:19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
428:19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
405:21:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
377:19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
364:16:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
359:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
344:20:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
319:19:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
302:05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
269:08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
252:00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
229:18:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
209:16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
183:13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
171:07:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
147:06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
125:22:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
528:
479:Cthulhu in popular culture
418:Cthulhu in popular culture
164:Cthulhu in popular culture
504:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
441:of a bad article. -
386:Keep and clean up.
262:AfD is not cleanup
403:
244:note number three
207:
198:
519:
506:
397:
362:
360:
214:Keep and merge
203:
189:
110:
92:
52:
34:
527:
526:
522:
521:
520:
518:
517:
516:
515:
509:deletion review
502:
358:
356:
145:
142:r e s e a r c h
83:
67:
64:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
525:
523:
514:
513:
496:
494:
493:
472:
454:
453:
452:
451:
431:
430:
407:
382:
381:
380:
379:
367:
366:
349:
348:
347:
346:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
272:
271:
255:
254:
232:
231:
211:
186:
185:
173:
149:
139:
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
524:
512:
510:
505:
499:
498:
497:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
473:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
455:
450:
447:
444:
443:Francis Tyers
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
429:
426:
423:
422:Francis Tyers
419:
415:
411:
408:
406:
401:
396:
391:
387:
384:
383:
378:
375:
371:
370:
369:
368:
365:
361:
354:
351:
350:
345:
341:
337:
336:
330:
320:
316:
312:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
294:
289:
285:
280:
276:
275:
274:
273:
270:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
250:
245:
240:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
226:
222:
221:
215:
212:
210:
206:
202:
196:
192:
188:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
172:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
148:
144:
143:
138:
137:
132:
129:
128:
127:
126:
123:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
503:
500:
495:
474:
457:
438:
409:
389:
385:
352:
333:
291:
278:
266:Father Goose
238:
218:
213:
190:
175:
168:Father Goose
151:
140:
134:
130:
118:
45:
43:
31:
28:
277:Otto, I am
156:WP:ITSCRUFT
152:Speedy keep
288:Good Omens
160:WP:NOT#DIR
416:. Note,
374:Otto4711
311:Otto4711
249:Otto4711
180:Otto4711
122:RobJ1981
113:View log
483:Bearian
439:monster
395:EldKatt
239:mention
131:Comment
86:protect
81:history
462:bogdan
458:Delete
414:trivia
410:Delete
201:Hiding
176:Delete
90:delete
284:Dagon
136:h i s
107:views
99:watch
95:links
48:. ···
16:<
487:talk
475:Keep
466:talk
400:Talk
353:Keep
340:talk
315:talk
298:talk
225:talk
191:Note
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
46:keep
335:DGG
293:DGG
286:in
279:not
264:.--
220:DGG
199:--
197:.
166:.--
111:– (
51:日本穣
489:)
481:.
468:)
342:)
317:)
300:)
227:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
485:(
464:(
446:·
425:·
402:)
398:(
338:(
313:(
296:(
223:(
205:T
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.