I propose merging Cacodemon into this page. After removing a large WP:EXAMPLEFARM, there's nothing left beyond a WP:DICDEF, which could easily be merged in here. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: the article on demons is quite extensive and general; it would be difficult to provide sufficient coverage for this there, and there is potential for expansion. Contrary to the claims in the nomination, this is clearly not a dictionary definition; and the contrast given in the lead with two related concepts also from Greek mythology underscores this. I think it was a serious mistake to remove the "popular culture" section: reviewing what it contained before being deleted by the nominator, I was surprised to learn that the concept was so widely known and employed; the article would benefit from having that material restored. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I deleted it because it was nothing but an example farm. These kinds of lists are too often used as a "notability buff" in place of finding truly RS. See WP:POPCULTURE for more info. Yes, I know, essay not policy blah blah blah... As for the ones which have been restored, are gaming manuals considered RS now? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Published works are reliable sources for their own contents, and in-line citations are not required by the Manual of Style. So yes, the instructions for a game are a perfectly adequate source for what appears in the game. For that matter, a book, film, television program, etc. is an appropriate source for whatever occurs in it, so simply stating that "Ophelia is one of the characters in Hamlet" technically doesn't need a citation, though of course it's less likely to be deleted if you place a citation to Hamlet (or a secondary source about Hamlet) after it. If all you're saying is that cacodemons appear in a specific work of literature (using that word in its broadest sense), you don't really have to have a separate citation. It's just a good idea to.

  As for pop culture examples, I understand the argument, and often they're unnecessary, or can be pared down to a small number of examples. In this case, however, it does help to know how widespread the concept is. I had no idea that cacodemons were widely known in popular culture! It would make no sense to attempt to list every work in which unicorns appear, but cacodemons aren't nearly as familiar, so we can't take their appearances in other works for granted. P Aculeius (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That line of reasoning has been dubbed "cargo cult writing" and is exactly why IPC sections are not desirable. Consult WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:CARGO, and MOS:POPCULT. The last covers the same ground as the essay I cited in my last comment, but this one has the strength of policy behind it. A list of examples, no matter how long, neither supports nor confers notability. When the list itself comprises the majority of the article, it weakens rather than strengthens the case for notability.

  As one Wikipedian put so brilliantly during an AfD, "We need sources which discuss the subject, not merely speak its name." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't suggesting that passing mentions are relevant. However, characters who belong to a class or category of thing are not usually passing mentions. And I already said quite clearly that such lists have nothing to do with demonstrating notability. They demonstrate the influence of a concept on literature, the arts, etc., and to the extent that how widespread something is may not be well-known, it is a relevant fact to consider for inclusion within an article about a topic that is itself notable—within prudent limits, which would naturally consider whether something is merely mentioned in passing, or is important to the work in question. A character telling a joke about cacodemons is a passing mention; a character who is a cacodemon and is important to the plot is not a passing mention. P Aculeius (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In practice we require third-party sources for IPC items because that covers both the facts and helps ensure notability. It is generally better if the third-party source says something about why the media creator decided to make the reference in the first place. Things cited only to the media itself are typically removed by editors as non-notable and undue. Skyerise (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Always a bad idea to make assumptions about what a source contains without actually checking it. But also a bad idea to leave things like this uncited, since being a bad idea has rarely stops anyone from doing anything. P Aculeius (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What policy is that? I'd like to have something to cite for this and future IPC removals. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a Wikipedia policy; it's just what some people have decided to use as a measuring stick. However, I believe that someone should check what the item is actually about before deleting it: you can't assume that an appearance—or anything else, really—is trivial merely because it's not cited to a secondary source.

  I was about to use as an example the visual depiction of a Dyson sphere in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation as a notable instance of something appearing in pop culture and cited to the episode, but discovered that it had been deleted as 'usourced trivia' multiple times by the article's gatekeeper—a good example of why we cite things even when the source is perfectly evident, as well as one of overzealous editing. Since it's actually a rather important example by comparison with some of the others mentioned in the article, I spent an hour documenting it at a level that should survive any reasonable scrutiny.

  But as I said—you can't assume that something is non-notable merely because it doesn't have a citation to an independent source. That's just bad editing. If something is attributed to a specific work, check to see whether it's important to that work, and perhaps add a reference if it seems to be. Non-contentious claims should not be deleted simply because they're inadequately cited, without a reasonable attempt to locate a reliable source. We have highly-used templates precisely for citing things to the books or movies or television programs or radio broadcasts or other media in which they appear, and technically such a citation is perfectly valid for the contents of that item, even if you can't find an independent source describing those contents. P Aculeius (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After that well-thought-out answer, I'm a bit embarrassed to say I was asking @Skyerise. He said that we require third-party sources for IPC items and as one who often deletes IPC sections, I'd like to have something concrete to refer to.

  That said, if you "can't assume non-notability due to lack of independent citation," you can't assume notability either. That's why IPC sections are not looked on favorably; it's too easy to use them to "puff up" an article of dubious merit. "It must be notable/important because it's been mentioned in a bunch of comic books and TV shows" is not a valid argument. Again I cite WP:NOTTVTROPES. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is an essay, not a policy. Some random editor's opinion. Dimadick (talk) 22:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guessed you were asking Skyerise, but I wanted to make sure I explained why I don't think that items should be dismissed as "trivia" without at least checking to see whether they might be notable examples. There are lots of notable works of fiction that I've never heard of, and while I agree that there's a lot of trivia in "pop culture" sections that could stand to be deleted, I'm wary of cutting out too much, since they can also give readers a good idea of how well-known a concept is. I would suggest splitting them off if they become unwieldy, but then they risk deletion or re-merger as non-notable topics, thus defeating the purpose of splitting them off. That's a very frustrating situation!

  As a rule, I assume that if a work is itself notable, then the occurrence is potentially relevant, depending on how important it is to the work. If I don't have the time or opportunity to find out, then I leave it. I'll delete it only if I'm sure it's trivial. And if I have the time and some interest in the topic, I might supply citations so that things don't get overzealously deleted. I'd rather err on the side of including too much fluff than keeping out information that readers are actually looking for! P Aculeius (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:IPC may be an essay, but it is based on policy. The first policy is WP:V - any IPC item which has no citation may be removed by any editor - and the WP:BURDEN for citing it falls on the editor who wants to restore it. The second is WP:RS, which requires third-party sourcing. If you look at the basis for the claimed exception to it in WP:V at WP:ABOUTSELF, you will see that this exception is intended for articles about the source being cited. That is, an article about a book could mention that it makes a pop culture reference citing only to the book itself. However, in other articles, a third-party citation would be required. For an example of what an IPC section looks like when these rules are not followed, see this old version of Kilroy was here. Skyerise (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose oppose per @P Aculeius: I will go ahead and restore the cited pop culture items, which were few. Feel free to find citations for others if you'd like to restore any of them. Skyerise (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Inappropriate removal of sourced content to justify an unnecessary merge. Toughpigs (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]