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 for deletion. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Succubus in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Trivia collection, imparting no greater knowledge of the subject, just a list of trivial mentions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT#IINFO. Eyrian 16:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Never heard that great knowledge of the subject was a consideration for keeping or deleting. If it were, there wouldn't be all that much left of WPedia. Enough of the items are even going to be sourceable from reviews to show the clear recognition of this. I do not do so now because neither I nor anyone can source the dozens of articles as fast as someone can nominate them. The nom that he is deliberately attempting to bypass the opportunity to improve articles and form consensus by overwhelming AfD. DGG (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Or, DGG, he might just be trying to improve the encyclopedia by getting rid of what amounts to junk. Also, though you have 'never heard that great knowledge of the subject was a consideration for keeping or deleting', you might want to check out what exactly an encyclopedia is supposed to be, where the word comes from, and why we call it that. I'm trying to say this as civilly as possible, so please forgive me if it sounds a bit harsh. The object of a Wikipedia article is and always has been (I thought) that the reader comes away with a certain knowledge of the subject. What knowledge do these articles impart? In fact, if anything, they mangle the potential knowledge of the original article's subject. I'm not sure how exactly these articles are making Wikipedia better. In the article for Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, it would be a good idea to mention that Fluffy is inspired by Cerberus; however, the Cerberus article or a separate article for Cerberus in popular culture is simply not the place for it!. If Cerberus plays a primary role a work of popular culture, categorize that work's article into Category:Greco-Roman mythology in popular culture. But for Pete's sake, what the hell are we doing here if we're not trying to impart knowledge onto our readers?? CaveatLector^Talk 03:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable pop culture phenom and no WP:RS says it is. Carlossuarez46 21:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It never will be a pop culture phenomenon. Adolescent boys, the only real fans of the concept, generally can't spell it, don't know how to pronounce it, and end up making fun of someone who does say it correctly. Suck-ya-buss. It's not popular, it's not culture. At least Incubus has a chance.Mandsford 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eyrian. 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 immediatists. 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. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 22:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Surely it's obvious that this page should be merged with [1]. The information is valuable, and referenced. And of course it's culture. --Greatest hits 20:14, 9 August 2007 (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.