285:. 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.
210:. The Shakespearean references surely belong, as do the uses of the phoenix as allegorical figures or heraldic or national emblems. And, in all likelihood, the Harry Potter version is inescapable. As a figure from mythology and folklore, it is of the nature of the phoenix to reappear under various guises throughout history. Figures such as this do not need separate "in popular culture" articles, as much as they need to not disparage more recent appearances. -
234:"in popular culture" isn't correct for the article anyway, as it covers more than just 'popular culture'. Change to "Historical use of the phoenix as a symbal" or something shorter to that effect. Is referenced and wikilinked well, and is actually an interesting and well compiled article. Agree with RandomCritic that it may have got tossed in due to the naming.
48:
While I might have closed this as no consensus, the article contains some good references. Obviously OR should be removed if possible, but that can be dealt with separately by editing. Assertions that all articles of the form "_ in popular culture" by nature violate
Knowledge (XXG) policy have been
398:, it is requirement that AfD's have proper discussion before an article gets deleted. As it stands now with the floods of related articles being nominated for deletion it is impossible for interested editors to properly discuss the deletions with the depth the articles and wikipedia deserve.
321:
says that we must delete all "in popular culture" articles, which is what the nominators for the deletion of this and many other similar articles seem to be implying. This lack of consensus is evidenced by the fact that
258:
per Ihcoyc/Smerdis/whatever. Some of these pop culture references are notable (e.g. the city in
Arizona, ditto the Shakespeare, Rowling, etc. references. Some are just trivial and should go.
366:
between those who want access to and to contribute to this information, and those who want to get rid of it. A reasonable compromise might be to create a new
Wikimedia project (on par with
118:
Long list of trivial references. The referenced examples of antiquity have nothing but the fact that they are mentioned. No further understanding or analysis, all of which is contained in
182:
281:. 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
111:
342:, evident by the number of such articles, the number of editors who have created and contributed to such articles, and how long they have been around, that these articles
414:— no true importance is shown from sources; it's just a subarticle listing appearances. Besides, this list format is the poorest way to handle this type of article. —
84:
79:
88:
71:
246:
One of the few pop culture articles that seems to stay focused, with sufficient information for each reinterpretation of the legend of the
Phoenix.
356:
No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined.
278:
358:" Perhaps a wider discussion will reveal a consensus that these articles don't belong in Knowledge (XXG); however, they ought to exist
17:
75:
435:
423:
402:
382:
305:
289:
265:
250:
238:
226:
214:
197:
169:
53:
431:%SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Knowledge (XXG) as well.
150:
450:
36:
190:
67:
59:
326:(which is supposed to reflect consensus policy) says nothing about trivia or "in popular culture" articles. Also,
49:
discounted as there is no consensus that that is the case. Pharmboy makes a good point about possible renaming.
449:
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
297:
if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of
162:
138:
339:
419:
259:
222:. A research-relevant list unfairly targeted because of the words "popular culture" in the title.
207:
131:
122:'s already excellent sections on the myth and usage. Delete as an unacceptable trivia collection (
327:
186:
223:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
374:) to host these types of articles, but until then, these articles ought to be kept here, per
314:
123:
346:
exist. The present pop-culture deletion campaign, which has been successful to some extent,
146:
375:
363:
351:
323:
318:
127:
432:
330:
says nothing about deleting articles such as this; on the contrary, it says things like "
193:. Last time I checked, there was over 120 "in popular culture articles", now there's 93.
416:
391:
302:
298:
286:
247:
194:
274:
235:
395:
379:
166:
50:
105:
399:
211:
142:
332:
Do not simply remove such sections: it may be possible to integrate some items
371:
367:
354:, however, without a wider discussion than AfD, this cannot be determined. "
119:
189:
for a reason, so delete this along with all the other trivia pages in
185:
shows that most articles were deleted, merged, or redirected. We have
443:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
378:, and improved to better comply with Knowledge (XXG) policies.
273:(without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of
183:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject
Deletion sorting/Popular culture
282:
336:
Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists
101:
97:
93:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
453:). No further edits should be made to this page.
362:, otherwise Knowledge (XXG) will be a perpetual
338:..." There has been for a long time, however,
8:
279:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Eyrian
206:relevant data in the article in chief on
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
313:There is clearly no consensus that
24:
1:
191:Category:In popular culture
134:16:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
54:19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
470:
436:17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
424:14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
403:23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
383:02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
306:07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
290:07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
266:20:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
251:18:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
239:00:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
227:14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
215:13:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
198:13:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
170:10:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
68:Phoenix in popular culture
60:Phoenix in popular culture
446:Please do not modify it.
295:Request to closing admin
161:This AfD nomination was
32:Please do not modify it.
153:) 2007/08/02 16:23:35
352:a change in consensus
181:Previous debates at
165:. It is listed now.
208:Phoenix (mythology)
202:Very selectively
155:
141:comment added by
461:
448:
262:
261:Ten Pound Hammer
154:
135:
109:
91:
34:
469:
468:
464:
463:
462:
460:
459:
458:
457:
451:deletion review
444:
260:
256:Selective merge
232:Keep and Rename
212:Smerdis of Tlön
136:
82:
66:
63:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
467:
465:
456:
455:
439:
438:
426:
405:
385:
308:
299:User:AndyJones
292:
277:and myself at
268:
253:
241:
229:
217:
200:
175:
174:
173:
172:
116:
115:
62:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
466:
454:
452:
447:
441:
440:
437:
434:
430:
427:
425:
422:
421:
418:
413:
409:
406:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
386:
384:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
320:
316:
312:
309:
307:
304:
300:
296:
293:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
275:User:Melsaran
272:
269:
267:
263:
257:
254:
252:
249:
245:
242:
240:
237:
233:
230:
228:
225:
221:
218:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
176:
171:
168:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
133:
129:
125:
121:
113:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
86:
81:
77:
73:
69:
65:
64:
61:
58:
56:
55:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
445:
442:
428:
415:
411:
407:
387:
364:battleground
359:
355:
347:
343:
340:WP:CONSENSUS
335:
331:
319:WP:NOT#IINFO
310:
294:
283:immediatists
270:
255:
243:
231:
224:RandomCritic
219:
203:
178:
137:— Preceding
128:WP:NOT#IINFO
117:
45:
43:
31:
28:
433:Burntsauce
429:Delete all
350:represent
163:incomplete
392:AndyJones
372:Wikiquote
368:Wikibooks
360:somewhere
303:AndyJones
287:AndyJones
248:Mandsford
195:Spellcast
328:WP:ATRIV
236:Pharmboy
187:WP:ATRIV
151:contribs
139:unsigned
112:View log
417:Deckill
396:DHowell
380:DHowell
334:..."; "
315:WP:FIVE
167:DumbBOT
124:WP:FIVE
120:phoenix
85:protect
80:history
51:JoshuaZ
408:Delete
400:Mathmo
376:WP:IAR
344:should
324:WP:NOT
179:Delete
143:Eyrian
132:Eyrian
89:delete
412:Merge
348:might
204:merge
106:views
98:watch
94:links
16:<
394:and
390:per
388:Keep
370:and
317:and
311:Keep
271:Keep
244:Keep
220:Keep
147:talk
126:and
102:logs
76:talk
72:edit
46:keep
410:or
264:•
130:).
110:– (
420:er
301:?
149:•
104:|
100:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
78:|
74:|
145:(
114:)
108:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.