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 delete and draftify to Draft:Japanese mythology in popular culture. There is a pretty clear consensus to delete in this discussion. The notability concerns are not particularly convincing, and most participants agree that an article on this topic could exist. However, there does appear to be agreement that a list format may not be the right approach for this article, and therefore the article should be blown up and started over from scratch. The reason I'm draftifying the article is a bit IAR since no one really asked for that, but I'd like to keep the article visible to non-admins for two purposes: first, in case anyone wants to merge any good content to other articles, and second, in case anyone wants to take a stab at rewriting the article, they'll have access to the 14 citations in the article as well as the other good sources brought up within this discussion. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese mythology in popular culture[edit]

Japanese mythology in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

A pure indiscriminate list and example farm, fails WP:LISTN. Potentially notable topic, but the article is entirely unsalvageable and has seen no improvement since previous AfD in 2011. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability of the topic was established in the 2011 AfD. While the current article may indeed suck, nothing is preventing any editor from cleaning it up. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, WP:NEXIST implies there isn't somewhere else for the information to go and therefore there is no point deleting the article. However, any reliably sourced info can easily be added to Japanese mythology without this article having to be there, that article is not even that large. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NLIST as hopelessly broad. The topic might be suitable as a general article, but not as a list of examples. (Same applies to Greek mythology in popular culture and other mythologies.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not appropriate for a list. Notability concerns. an interesting topic for an actual article, but we can’t list every single instance of something common like, I dunno, a kappa or an oni in popular culture. If this list was actually going to be maintained do you know how many anime and manga alone would have to be listed? Dronebogus (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or draft. Title of the article is not "list of" and no need for it to be a list. Just cut everything without a source, and what is sourced put into paragraph form instead of a list. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There’s a mere 15 sources for this huge list, and they’re all mediocre or terrible. Keep what? Dronebogus (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you cut out all the garbage and only used what MIGHT be salvageable, the article would look like this:

clearly no reason to keep a fat three two entries Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If cleanup shrinks it that much it'd get to an easy place to merge. Or draft, either way. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The source is there if you want to move it to a draftspace. Dronebogus (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nowikid the code above, it was messing stuff up.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very notable topic, but this list is pure WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTTRIVIA in needs of WP:TNT. Ping me if this is rewritten into prose, with sources, and I'll reconsider my vote. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, trim, improve, or merge for the time being: As has been said, the notability of the subject is hardly in doubt here. In addition to the sources mentioned in the first deletion discussion, look a sources like this paper, the whole book Japanese Mythology in Film, this book chapter, this paper, The Bloomsbury Handbook of Japanese Religions and Mythology and Gods of Japan by Hirafuji Kikuko it refers to. Therefore, it's just not correct that it fails WP:LISTN! So why focus on deletion rather than improving what we have by added references where appropriate before removing unsuitable examples? I think the cut-out section by Dronebogus falls short of what's actually sourced already. E.g. why not to include the ki-rin entry by slate.com? Also, the Paste magazine article alone, while maybe not a high-tier magazine, could support eight entries, as the title says. If after such an improvement round (or before, if the majority should be so much bothered by a temporarily imperfect state) this should remains so short that it easily fits into Japanese mythology as a section, then sure, let's merge it there until such time that someone expands it more. As the sources show, such an expansion would easily be possible. If it becomes too broad, this can be an navigational aid and overview of sub-topics like kitsune in popular culture. If a list-form or prose from is the end result can be determined by what editors want to do here, and is a topic of clean-up, not a deletion discussion. That the broad scope is not exclusion critereon is shown by the existance of Greek mythology in popular culture as cited by Clarityfiend themselves. Daranios (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed bits I’ll admit. I didn’t even notice Slate. Dronebogus (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Another case where the article's title is on a notable topic, but the actual contents of the article would require a complete and utter rewrite, and is too full of inappropriate material (i.e., non-notable, unsourced and/or WP:OR) to remain in the main space while any kind of rewrite is underway. I am completely fine with the article being moved to Draftspace to help with a rewrite, of course, just opposed to it remaining in article space. Rorshacma (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG due to a lack of third party sources, completely composed of WP:OR. The WP:OR is so pervasive that the article is loaded with western bias, focusing on random examples instead of giving due weight to how Japanese themes are represented around the world. If you were to write a proper article about the topic, there would be nothing here to WP:PRESERVE, as it's all sourced to primary sources, none of it in prose as per WP:MOS, and none of it in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE weight. This is another case like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far future in fiction where there might be a notable topic, and a proper article would preserve nothing from the current form, which fails almost all of our policies and guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• All other arguments notwithstanding, WP:GNG and therefore WP:LISTN specifically refer to the topic, not the current state of the article. Such sources about the topic exist, even if you are not satisfied with those which are present in the article. Daranios (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the claims of @Jclemens:, @Hyperbolick:, and @Daranios:. This is a comment to the closer of this discussion if that page is deleted, I ask that all entries are transferred to the pages of the Japanese mythology creatures in question. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not likely per WP:G4. Just shuffling junk around to game the system. Dronebogus (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What an unhelpful and unencyclopedic attitude. Individual content that meets V and has an appropriate home in a notable topic should indeed be kept vs. deleted. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I absolutely have no idea how you see that as WP:NOTHERE. I said it was junk because 99% of it is junk— i.e. WP:OR and fancruft. Dronebogus (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your attitude of dismissing arguments you don’t like as “NOTHERE” is far more disruptive and inappropriate. Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  dronebogus You demonstrated both a poor attitude towards another editor rather than good faith, and you did it by citing a policy, WP:CSD#G4, in an entirely wrong manner. G4 does not apply to adding deleted content to notable pages, only to substantially unchanged recreation of deleted pages, and anyone citing it--especially in such a dismissive manner--has an obligation to represent policy correctly, which you failed to do. Such WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior--this is junk and must be eliminated--is not what Wikipedia is about. If you don't want to be tagged as WP:NOTHERE, start AGF'ing, reducing win-or-lose outcomes and look for solutions that satisfy everyone, and have empathy for people who don't see things your way. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I could argue you are assuming bad faith by suggesting I deliberately misinterpreted policy instead of accidentally misinterpreted it. I was not assuming bad faith with the other editor— I was trying to explain what I believed was a application of policy. You still seem like you are mining for reasons to needle me. Dronebogus (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Especially when the incident happened 6 days ago. Dronebogus (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as I feel the instances (if notable) would be much better presented in prose on the pages of the Japanese mythology creatures in question. It isn't considered pure trivia if there is some context behind the appearance, and the information is valuable if presented in the right way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an indiscriminate aggregation of fancruft; Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. The topic is almost certainly notable, but would need a full rewrite based on secondary sources into a prose article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination) for how this is done). Sandstein 15:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:TNT applies. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2022 (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.