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. There is no firm consensus to merge but that does appear to be a fairly likely outcome. I suggest interested editors discuss the question of a merger on the proposed target's talk page. This closure as a keep is in no way prohibitive of a merger after discussion. Shereth 15:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article, like other similar ones, does not give any context as to why its subject is notable enough for an independent article. There is no context for why it's important, and none of the material is sourced, so it can't be verified. It may well be that one day enough sourced, verifiable information will be found for such an article, but come on, add it to the main article first and fork it off at the point that becomes necessary. I'd have merged this stuff into Vercingetorix, but there's nothing to merge, as it's all unsourced. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the material is not particularly suitable for an encyclopedia, and must not move to the other article. Mintrick (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, definitely not encyclopedic. Essentially a trivia list. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - off the top of my head, the Asterix one I know well, and I am sure there are refs for it somewhere, other material may or may not have. Given the brevity of both the articles, size is no reason for split here. Nor is article quality a reason to vote delete. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge Can be rewritten to be more encyclopedic. But includes relevant and notable appearances. Sourcing can also be improved and the list trimmed. (ec) ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also keep or merge. While it may be unsourced at the moment, references can certainly be found to back it up, and the potential exists for it to be more encyclopedic. The information is relevant in giving a broader context to Vercingetorix, and may have utility. --QUANTUM ZENO 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added refs for more than half of the list, I'm sure refs for the rest can be found. I'm also incredibly thrilled to know that Vercingetorix has actually had a greater influence on pop culture than just throwing his shield at Ceasar's feet. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Vercingetorix in a new section - Vercingetorix#Cultural depictions. Based on F&W's arguments below and the way the French have handled it, I'm convinced that, this would be a better option. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—He is an important historical figure and there are some notable cultural aspects listed. It looks like the references issue is being addressed.—RJH (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Vercingétorix actually had an important role in French culture, particularly in the 19th century, as a symbol of French nationalism.Rhinoracer (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if the article is improved (and some ground has been made thus far), the good content should be merged back to the main article, after whick point I think this fork will need to be redirected or deleted. It's senseless to focus on a fork without touching the article it's a fork from.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I immediately thought to look to see how we deal with Boudicca in popular culture: Boudicca#Cultural depictions. First, it is in the main article, and I can't see why it should be any different in this case. Second, it avoids those 'dog whistle' words, "in popular culture", using the more scholarly "Cultural depictions". Nice. I'm going to see if I can add to it, but as Spaceman7Spiff has already sourced some of it, put me down for a merge. Fences&Windows 23:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another useful comparison is how fr.wikipedia deals with the subject: [1]. Fences&Windows 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Showing how a historical figure has appeared throughout the ages in popular culture, is worthy of a wikipedia article. Dream Focus 01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's an intelligent way to do this and a silly one. The French do the former, integrating a well-grounded discussion on Vercingetorix' influence upon Second Empire and Third Republic France into a general biography of his. We choose the latter, dwelling on trivial inanities like Air Gear and of course The Simpsons. Let's not: let's rise above that and do better. Fails WP:V - no sources actually discussing the concept have been presented. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When notable historical figures, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the person is referred to in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the fictional works directly. More specific secondary sources are better, and I see some here. So the argument is essentially IDONTLIKETHISTYPEOFARTICLE, as shown by the nom. wording "many similar ones". There's lots of types I articles i don't like myself, and I deal with them by leaving them alone. There's enough to do working on the ones I do like. DGG (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect since I do not believe that the subject of the article is discussed--it's only mentioned by the items listed, and I believe that the French way is the better way. (I've always wanted to say that and mean it.) Drmies (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable topic about a notable person, which is well-documented and well-referenced. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the thing is, it's not about a person. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2009 (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.