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 keep. John254 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article consists almost entirely of trivia. Rather than discussing relevance in popular culture, this is simply a collection of random references of dubious value. Those few valuable tidbits that are important could simply be folded into the parent article. No serious academic discussion is present in this article. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination Withdrawn. There has been substantial improvement on this page in the past few days and while it is still in need of a very great deal of work if the improvements continue then this will be up to standards. I should note, however, that the page is still in need of very substantial improvements and probably some policing to prevent it from devolving, but this is a good start. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for being willing to reconsider it. I've contacted the Anime WikiProject to help rewrite the anime-related sections, which are still in need of work.--Father Goose (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This site allows for comparisons of the uses of elements and the idea of elements plus their interconnected nature of such. An example of this would be the use of electricity with the air element in D&D compared to it's use with fire in Avatar. It provides an easy access for deeper research on the ideas behind this. It provides more information then some pages which are just lists or don't have a lot of content.HVulpes 18:47 EST, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't. It's a list of random references that provide insufficient information about any of these instances to permit any serious comparison or analysis. The page is a giant list lacking any critical analysis or discussion. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Since it does not fall under any of the most common reasons for deletion. Being trivia is not a deletable office since many things on Wikipedia could be seen as trivia. It's interesting no one has tried the alternatives to deletion, like editing. I admit I am not the greatest editor for the page, but no one seems to be trying anything else like it has been suggested on the deletion page before a deletion is to take place. I will try to fix this article if everyone has a problem with it. HVulpes 18:47 EST, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually it does fall under two reasons for deletion. First, it is content not suitable for an encyclopedia. Second, very, very little of the material here is actually notable--who cares if some random anime references the five elements? If you want to rewrite this article, feel free, but you need to start from scratch. Don't just make a list of references; explain the significance of the classical elements in different kinds of popular culture with maybe a few references. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is essentially WHOCARES. Anime fans will care if some random anime references the five elements. There are anime fans on Wikipedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What TallNapoleon said -- this is just a random list, insufficient in context to provide any real analysis of the classical elements in popular culture; it's just a gathering of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There seems to be no rhyme or reason for inclusion here, plus the term "classic elements" casts a huge net. Something like this would need to be divided further into more specific elements for it to work. Incidentally the last AFD in August 2007 ended with no consensus/keep default. 23skidoo (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements is well defined here on Wikipedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: just because A and B are notable does not make B's reference to A inherently deserving of a place in Wikipedia. Such connections deserve the same scrutiny as the notability of A and B themselves. Nevermind, of course, the completely uncyclopedic format of this article: filled with little more than lists of trivial references rather than actual content. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep. At first, I was thinking delete on the basis of 'classical elements isn't clearly defined', but we have an article on it. If it's clearly defined on this article as well, I think it could work, but at the moment, it's very ... iffy. While AfD isn't forced cleanup, I think this would be a likely "keep getting nominated until it gets deleted" article even if improved. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Luksuh 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Irony: I would like to mention that this article was created to make sure the Classical element page was not clutter by constant suggestions of elements in use pop culture. Even after I posted the article, people keep posting uses of elements in pop culture until they finally noticed the site. Now if this article is deleted, I am sure there will be post of elements in culture back on the classical element page till it takes up most of the page. Which will require an article for that. Which will be targeted for deletion due to just being 'Trivia' of uses of elements in culture. Then the Cycle will likely repeat. To prevent this, I have tried to redo the page so it hold more information and details for debate. I am not sure it will work, but I am now trying. HVulpes 20:39 EST, 5 April 2008

• This is the general pattern of how "In Popular Culture" sections work on Wikipedia; I suspect there is already a Wikipedia-space page documenting this process.

1. Someone makes an "in popular culture" section containing one or two important and relevant references that are a useful contribution to the article.
2. The list is filled with dozens of useless and non-encyclopedic references.
3. It gets really long, so someone splits it out to a new article.
4. The article gets AfD'd.
5. Go to step 1.

—Dark•Shikari^[T] 00:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is of course correct, and well established. Since you realise it, why are you suggesting to delete the article? The point is to interrupt the cycle and keep the material. Where to put it then is an editorial decision, depending in my opinion principally on the amount of material available and the length of the comprehensive article. DGG (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the analysis is at best only half-correct: lately the result has been that the better In Popular Culture articles have been kept; borderline ones are commonly improved to the point where they are kept; and the remainder deleted.--Father Goose (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree needs a big cleanup, but obviously notable. The whole 4 elements thing is pop culture anyway, just ancient. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While this may be a notable topic, in this case I think it would be better to kill it, and let someone recreate it at a later date with some sourced and notable entries. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per compelling arguments to keep in previous discussion, undeniable notability of topic, encyclopedic nature of the subject, plenty of interest among readers, good faith contributors, and donors as evidenced by those arguing for keep in this and the previous AfD. Moreover, "I don't like" is not a compelling reason to delete. Finally, the subject of the classical elements as they relate to art is indeed covered in secondary sources: [1]. In fact, just searching Amazon.com I am finding sufficient sources to begin a significant revision of the article and I hope that those who may have initially suggested delete will please take the revisions into account (I am going to take a break to watch SNL in a few minutes though). Anyway, check for example the product description here or the editorial review here. Finally, as the article is not a copy vio, libel, or hoax, and as a redirect location exists (Classical elements), even in the worst case scenario we would redirect without deletion so editors' contributions remain public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like what you've done so far. I'd just like to point out that listing large numbers of references to the elements from fictional sources of varying significance does not an article make. Rather than how a bunch of individual media portray and reference the elements, it would be better to focus on general trends and patterns with a few very notable references for backup. Keep up the good work. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, since I am watching Saturday Night Live at the moment, for anyone looking for a discussion related laugh, check out here for the MacBook Earth, Water and Fire. Also, it is worth noting that the classical elements have served as significant plot (even titular) elements in various works of fiction. Blaze (Mortal Kombat) is a fire elemental with appearances in muliple Mortal Kombat games, including as the end boss in the most recent game. The whole premise of The Fifth Element concerns the four classical elements and a unique fifth element. Reviews of such characters and films could also be good for secondary information, i.e. any interviews or analysis of these characters and/or use of the elements in the games and films. Also, speaking of Mortal Kombat, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation featured Elder Gods based on the four elements, which are mentioned interestingly enough in such reviews as this. Anyway, please consider the nominated version versus the revised version. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's progress, but again: There is too much of "In movie/video game/anime X, character Y represents element Z." A list tells us very little about the elements in popular culture--they are so pervasive that no list will be complete or terribly useful. Rather the article should critically analyze patterns in their appearances. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ideally, it should provide both. But articles which document the influence of a given subject through a list of the subjects it influenced (detailing the manner of the influence) are still of value. Somebody researching the subject can see all the most relevant examples collected in one place, and perform their own critical analysis as they read.--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page needs some work, but there are plenty of other articles which are "trivial" which aren't deleted. This isn't paper, keep it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is not a random list, merely an insufficient one, as there is a great deal of material that could be added. The notable principal themes of notable works are significant content for an article. The title might need some touching up--I didnt realise from the title by itself what was goingt o be included. -possibly the article may need division. DGG (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs a lot of work, particularly organization and sourcing, which I'm willing to help with. I came to the article with indifference but noticed the Fantastic Four entry, never having realized until now that they are representations of the elements. This has much untapped potential as an encyclopedic subject.--Father Goose (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Much improved, thanks to Le Grand Roi's and HVulpes' work. "Strong keep" now.--Father Goose (talk)
• Changing to Strong keep per the improvements to the article. This is certainly an encyclopedic subject, and now that it has seen some significant improvements, I see no reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another utterly encyclopedic topic unduly bagged as "cruft". Chubbles (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2008 (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.