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 merge to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture. Merged content to Syrinx#Syrinx_in_popular_culture - delete title as unlikely search. SilkTork *^YES! 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is just trivial listcruft at best. If there is any actual important notes: they belong in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Syrinx. Doesn't seem that controversial that it needs discussion. --neon white talk 20:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The redirect isn't useful, so I oppose merge. If any of the factoids that are mentioned here are actually relevant, they could be integrated into the article prose, not copied as bullets. Gigs (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is. When material is merged the redirect is kept for attribution purposes, not because it's a likely search term. (If it's really a problem, the page could be renamed prior to a merge anyway) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This material wasn't written by the editor listed in this article's history. Note that it was broken out of Syrinx, by Mintrick, without correct attribution to the other people who actually wrote it. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly oppose any kind of merge into Syrinx. None of these entries are significant to understanding the subject of that article. The appearances and modern references are a separate topic. Deletion or Keeping are both acceptable to me, so long as nothing goes back into Syrinx. Mintrick (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia doesn't limit material on articles to content "significant to understanding the subject of the article". It limits itself to material that is verifiable in reliable sources. So I say, if these references to Syrinx can be well-sourced, they belong on that page. If they cannot be sourced then they should be deleted. Cazort (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the history of this article: people proposed merges, and Mintrick just decided to revert those attempts with no consensus to do so (unless I'm missing a discussion somewhere). Moving the junk to a new article is NOT the solution here. Clean the article, don't move the trivia elsewhere. A majority of the time these types of sections are trivial cruft that should've just been removed from the main article in the first place. Splitting them into an article should be a last resort. RobJ1981 (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like a disruptive edit that should have just been reverted in favour of discussion. --neon white talk 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're deeply misinformed, and assuming bad faith; stop it. User:Realkyhick put up a proposed merge tag, I discussed it with him, and we both came to the decision that a merge was unnecessary. You can see that discussion here. Mintrick (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, xe is quite correct. You erased content, that erasure was reverted by Marcus Brute, and you then proceeded to reinstate your edit (falsely labelling it as a reversion) rather than proceeding to Talk:Syrinx (which you have never edited) for discussion per Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, so perhaps I should just fill up the Isaac Newton article with sourced information about Jazz music? Jesus, do you really need a policy to say that article content must be useful to understanding its subject? Mintrick (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is significant verifiable info on Issac Newton related jazz then do so. There is no policy that says that and never will be. When it comes to verified info matter wikipedia is generally favours inclusion. A subjects use and in popular culture is no less valid a topic than it's use in classical music, literature or art. I sense some elitist snobbery going on here. --neon white talk 12:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've no problem moving the classical references to the PC article. I left them there because, since they're substantially earlier, there's a presumption that they may have had some foundational influence on cultural understanding, as opposed to merely capturing the common perception. Dismissing that as "snobbery" is indicative of nothing more than modern cultural narcissism. Mintrick (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I too oppose these "popular culture" spinouts, they are like rubbish bins. But the primary article has the same sort of stuff in it. Because one work is by Debussy it's in and because the other is by Rush it's out? I am concerned that there is some POV in making the decision about what's in and what's out. Even the greatest of composers were popular culture in their day, think of all the trashy operas. Drawn Some (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I read this and thought of Syrinx (biology) and was like...what about Larynx in popular culture: Black Thought's: "My rated X Larynx wrecks your context" etc. But anyway...I say Merge without Redirect into Syrinx. See my rationale in response to Mintrick's comments above. Cazort (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be WP:MAD, which is usually avoided. Gigs (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, thanks for the link. I wasn't aware that that was cumbersome. I just think that having a redirect is unnecessary. Cazort (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The GFDL is not a problem in this case. Mintrick isn't actually the author of this content in the first place. Xe took it from Syrinx, which has this content in its edit history, with the proper author attribution. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge retaining the content. There's no reason to have two articles when there;s not all that much material. This is not the sort of decision that needs afd. DGG (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Cazort (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this comment is deeply mistaken. Mintrick (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the sort of decision that comes to AFD time and again, though. See User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the same old cycle as described in User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing: An editor takes the lazy way out of splitting bad content into a separate standalone article, to sweep it under the rug, rather than addressing it properly in the article at hand. It comes to AFD, and the outcome is to either merge it back in or simply delete the content fork outright.

  The solution is for editors like Mintrick to not take the lazy way out in the first place, and to address cargo cult writing head on in the article at hand. This may, indeed, involve talk page discussion, which was not done in this case.

  The idea, that human knowledge that is merely the perception of "the common" is not human knowledge, is going to impede that process, and Mintrick would do well to lose that attitude. It's just as valid to address the portrayal of something in 20th and 21st century literature and art, based upon sources that make that analysis, as it is to address its portrayal in 19th century literature and art. The correct solution to bad writing is good writing, not taking the lazy way out and sweeping the bad writing under the rug (and then edit warring without discussion when someone reverts that).

  There's no reason to keep this fork; it's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken, when xyr erasure from Syrinx was reverted, was discussion on Talk:Syrinx. Indeed, the correct action in the first place was rewriting, so that the article addressed literary and artistic representations properly, not sweeping bad content under the rug at all. (It's worth noting that the content on 19th century representations isn't any better in quality than that on 20th and 21st century representations. That's cargo cult written bad content, too.) The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete. The disagreement over the content in the original article should be discussed on its talk page. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you hit the nail on the head with your analysis here. Cazort (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this comment is deeply mistaken. Mintrick (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm sure it feels satisfying to paint your "opponents" with misleading words like "erasure" and elitism, but you're deeply incorrect and bordering on assuming bad faith. I happen to believe that this isn't a good article, either, as I've said about similar articles up for deletion. The difference is that I've seen too many new users and potential users add to these lists, and I am not sure if I want to scare them away. The content in this article might not be a loss to Wikipedia, but the people attached to it might be. Mintrick (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be dangerous to make decisions on deletion or keeping based on personalities and feelings of editors: these things are so subjective and conflicting, and considering these things moves the deletion discussion away from the relevant points. Cazort (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to syrinx. No need for arbitrary line-in-the-sand between classical and modenr refsCasliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I too am not sure a redirect would be needed, after the material is merged back, since it should already be in the page history, and it;s not a likely search term. That particular question is for RfD. DGG (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. DGG
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. DGG

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.