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; recent community consensus against "in popular culture" articles applies much the same to this article, where "can be verified/cleaned up" protestations are outweighed by the extent to which this article is unverified and messy, and clearly isn't going to be made into a real article anytime soon. This article suffers more than others that have been deleted, if anything, due to the confusion between the Western political emblem and the Eastern religious symbol. The argument that this should be kept around because some of this mess needs to be merged into the featured article is equally unconvincing. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 03:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swastikas in popular culture[edit]

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every time a particular shape, or something that in the opinion of an editor resembles a particular shape, occurs in a TV show, movie or video game. Many of the references are not to swastikas at all but to manji. Strongly oppose any merger of any part of the article to featured article Swastika. Otto4711 14:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Huon 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep well sourced miscellany article
Delete per nom - there may well be the germ of a reasonable article here somewhere, but it would have to be extremely well researched and sourced - this isn't it. EliminatorJR 19:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cedlaod 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
complete rewrite. The subject of the article is notable of an article. SYSS Mouse 20:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly selective Merge to Swastika. This is a notable topic and could have a good article I think, but this listing is not it. Selectively merge content to "Popular culture" section of Swastika. Which content? Only that which is sourced and NOR:

The Pokeman player card in the "Games" section.
Prince Harry in the "People" section.
The building in San Diego in the "Places" section (see [1] for non-OR link). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 20:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep WP:Notable. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". --Parker007 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOT is a policy, which trumps a guideline. WP:OR is a policy, which trumps a guideline. Otto4711 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there are unsourced sections, article has multiple sourced areas as well. I've seen far worse. Could use some cleanup to better meet quality standards, but not worthy of being deleted outright. Bbagot 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen far worse" is not a valid criterion to keep. And sourcing is not the only issue. Even if every item had a reliable source that there was something resembling the hooked cross in it, deciding that the hooked cross-shaped thing is a swastika and not a manji or some other similar shape constitutes original research. And a collection of every occurrence of a particular shape in every medium, even if sourced, is still an indiscriminate list. Otto4711 15:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He makes mention of manjis as well. Perhaps what you are actually advocating is a name change to Swastikas and manjis in popular culture? Context also plays a large part and the article appears to do an adequate job in that area. Bbagot 04:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable bits to Swastika. Dump the OR. - WeniWidiWiki 05:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Swastika, and remove any unverifiable original research. (jarbarf) 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is very different from many of the articles with similar sounding titles. The symbol is distinctive and unmistakably recognizable, it is & was very prominent in man aspects of popular culture. DGG 04:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this article does not capture uses of the symbol in popular culture. It captures uses of something that an editor decided looked kind of like the symbol. Otto4711 14:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every entry is OR. It's easy to speak in general terms, but when you examine the entries one by one, each one is different. Why not just add fact tags for the problematic ones, and if they are not cited within a few weeks, delete them - then if the article is whittled down to nothing it can easily be merged or deleted. Seems like this AfD is jumping the gun to try and solve a problem that will just be re-created. The best solution is force people to make citations - deleting the article won't solve anything, it will just get re-created in a new format (sub-section somewhere else). -- Stbalbach 15:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, the best solution is to delete articles that consist of nothing but indiscriminate context-free items. As I've already said, even if every item were cited, that would still leave this as an indiscriminate list, devoid of any context either within the fictional item from which the sighting was made or in the real world. I am willing to assume good faith and accept right now on face value that every item on the list is a real factual thing. Which leaves the question of "so what"? What does it tell us about the XFL that their logo bore some passing resemblance to a swastika? What does knowing that a character in The Sum of All Fears has a swastika engraved on the back of his watch tell us about either The Sum of All Fears or the real world? Nothing. And I'm sorry, but your desire to keep these sorts of articles because it keeps the information from being in the main article is a poor excuse. If the information is crap in the main article and it's crap here then the information should be removed. And if that means that you or some other editor who's interested has to monitor the article, so be it. I have articles on my watchlist and when people add crap information to them I take it out. That's part of what being an editor here is about. If you're not willing to do it, that's fine, you certainly aren't required to. But please, don't shift the responsibility onto someone else by dumping garbage into a trivia article. Otto4711 17:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what your saying, I really do. But I know from experience these items will be re-added to Wikipedia by well meaning but mis-guided newbies (who represent the majority of editors). I've done experiments, deleted the pop culture section of an article - watched it re-populate within 6 months. Deleted it again, watched it re-populate again - always different people, anons and one-time editors. Deletion is not the answer. -- Stbalbach 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have people putting junk in the articles I watch too. And when they do, i take it out. And if they persist on putting it back, I take it out again and thrash it out on the talk page. That's how this thing is supposed to work. Otto4711 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we keep going in circles. You on the idealistic side, how people should behave, and me on the practical side, on how things really are. I think in the end reality will prevail, the problem is not new - there are some basic structural issues with Wikipedia that ensure it. Deleting the article and telling editors to be more vigilant won't solve it, just creates a cycle of add/delete. -- Stbalbach 07:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --MacRusgail 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an extension of its parent, and a merge might create a long page. All of this is verifiable, and if the medium was notable, the incident should be included. This is pretty much how it has been done so far as I can tell, but there could be some cleanup to do. This is not 'indiscriminate', in that it is a valid piece of another article. —siro χ o 20:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable about, to pick some examples more or less at random, "In the Sin City series of graphic novels, the character Miho's shurikens are shaped like swastikas" (the article does not offer any information to explain the notability of the shape of the shurikens either from within the fiction or in the real world), or "The interior roof of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome in Minneapolis, Minnesota is designed in a way that comes together resembling a swastika" (not that it is a swastika, but that according to the original research of an editor it "resembles" a swastika) or "In The Sum of All Fears, Alan Bates' character has a swastika engraved on the back of his watch" (without any information as to why that might be important to the story or any sourced analysis of how the swastika on the back of his watch has any real-world significance)? Otto4711 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article seems to be written of someone interested in goth and dark cultures. It should not be so easy to see who have written it. Ramduke — Ramduke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep per WP:SUMMARY. This has a decent number of references, notable enough topic, and amount of detail here that is too excessive for the main Swastika article. A brief 1-2 sentence summary of Swastikas in pop culture in the main article and a link to this subarticle is a good way to organize the material. --Aude (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY is a guideline. An article that violates a policy can't be saved by a guideline. Otto4711 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a clear violation of policy. -- Stbalbach 05:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is, but my point is that if an article does in fact violate policy then citing a guideline doesn't save it. Citing a guideline does not address the assertion of policy violation made in the nomination. Otto4711 20:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one would vote Keep if they agreed it violated policy. Many people disagree that is violates policy and can cite other guidelines which support their position for a keep. Many of these AfD's are surviving, there is no consensus in general. -- Stbalbach 20:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. No one ever votes to keep an article that violates policy? Give me a break. Otto4711 21:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone in this AfD is operating in Bad Faith by willfully voting against policy - do you? -- Stbalbach 21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I always assume good faith... Otto4711 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a tool to avoid this crap being in the main text. In any case please do not merge it back - serious maintainers would leave on spot seeing this heap of ... reinserted there. 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping the article to keep the information from becoming someone else's problem is not a valid argument for retention. If the information is crap, it's crap no matter what article it's located in. The proper response to crap is to remove it, not to shift it onto someone else to deal with. Otto4711 20:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki support to keep and improve quality of articles (like stable versions) has been promised for years and yet, nothing had materialized. This ugly and bad "in popular culture" hack is, IMHO, the only (somewhat) working way to deal with the crap here and now. Frex: I have watched the cruft being removed from Gorilla article and getting accumulated again and again until the Gorillas in popular culture did help with it. Pavel Vozenilek 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find exercising a small measure of vigilance as an editor and demanding that additions to articles meet Wikipedia standards works quite well. Endorsing my proposal to spell out explicitly that this sort of crap squarely outside the bounds of Wikipedia policy would also be a good thing. Personally I don't think it should be necessary to spell out in policy that crap information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and the existing admonitions against indiscriminate information and directories ought to be sufficient. But endorsing a policy change would help put a stake through their hearts, more than complaining about how things can't ever possibly change does. Otto4711 22:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These lists are messy research notes rather than encyclopedic articles. Greg Grahame 20:23, 25 February 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.