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. If no improvement occurs, a second deletion discussion some months hence will more likely than not result in deletion, I think. Sandstein 09:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner in popular culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" is really nothing but a giant trivia section. It's full of original research. No reliable third-party sources, just a long list of instances where in the opinion of Wikipedia editors some work of fiction quoted or otherwise referenced this work. *** Crotalus *** 17:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete; combines the worst of trivia and original research. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that it is a terrible article, full of original research, unsourced, and written like a giant trivia section. But the fact remains that this is a classic work of literature that has had a substantial impact on popular culture. I don't know the remedy for dealing with a terrible article on a notable subject, but I don't believe that deletion is the one to use. I'd suggest turning this into a stub, placing the deleted text on a subpage, and starting from scratch.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, don't even bother restarting from scratch, it's unsalvageable. No secondary sources, nothing more than WP:SYN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not trivia, for when notable cultural artifacts, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly. These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. That is not the case here. I do not see the problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. I do not see the problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. I do not see problems with OR, because it can be sourced in detail from the correct source, the works themselves.

I would suggest possibly rewriting to separate examples where only the name was used. I would possibly move items where only the concept of albatross was used to a separate article. But in many of the present ones the culture the relationship is obvious & obviously significant on the face of it. All it needs is expansion--its a pretty good start. As explicit refs can probably be given for almost all of them, I do not see on what basis anyone could say it is unsalvageable. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into the main article on the Ancient Mariner, and please cut out a lot of trivia such as brief jokey references from "Dad's Army" and "Samurai Jack." Warrah (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. A rewrite would be good, but this a notable aspect to the poem. Merge is also an option worth considering, but weight might be a problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can be rescued easily, this is a notable pop-culture fixture. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how a notable work has influenced other notable works throughout the ages, is something the Wikipedia needs. Dream Focus 14:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this does get kept (as I suspect it will), I think it definitely needs a great deal of cleanup and pruning; I don't mind entries about reinterpretations of the work but one-off mentions (which make up the majority of the Television and film) section need to be killed. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing is all primary. The albatross symbol has it's own article. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.