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. I think all are agreed a great deal of clean up is carried out, and if this doesn't take place, no prejudice towards re-evaluating this article in a subsequent AFD. Neil ╦ 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - what isn't indiscriminate and loosely or unassociated info is original research. A list of every time a Gnostic idea supposedly appears in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the ideas or the fiction in which they appear. Oppose merging nything to any other Gnosticism article. Otto4711 00:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. WP:NOT. The ridiculous and erroneous claims (Anatale France, eg) could be cleaned up, but the entire article is flawed. Eusebeus 02:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a valid research topic threatened by list-deletion mania. Defects of substance or completeness can be emended by editing the article, but hardly by deleting it. RandomCritic 14:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the title ends in "in popular culture," I'm against it. Realkyhick 18:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 19:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and remove the minor mentions--there are quite enough books & art where it is a major theme--I cant judge the other fields as well: but Blake, & Eco, & Lovecraft, & Pullman, and Anatole France, and Philip Dick, and John Crowley, and Borges, and Bloom & Dr. Who, --all these have works with this as the major theme. For a work to have the major theme of gnosticism is closely related, and the list just needs to be a little more discriminating. There are even some actual sources, and more can be found--the reviews and literature about each of the authors mentioned will discuss this.

I ask Otto to explain what he considers as loosely associated, and what as closely? If main theme isnt closely, then what is? Let's try to see if we can find some actual point of separation. DGG (talk) 00:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider an article full of unsourced items that in the opinion of an editor "may be seen as" or "could be considered" as having some bit or another in it that sounds kind of like some Gnostic philosophy to be loosely associated and original research. Otto4711 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Categorize relevant articles into Category:Tradition of Gnosticism in the arts (or something similar), then rename this article to an identical name, blank it and start over from scratch. There is definitely a well sourced article (once again, that is not a list) to be written on the influence of Gnosticism on the Western canon of art. CaveatLector^Talk 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This one seems to actually look at the depiction of the subject in media, rather than the usual IPC list which lists every bit of dialogue that refers to the subject. Mandsford 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There exists quality sources for many of these claims. Just because an article needs to be cleaned up doesn't mean it should be deleted. I've just found the article very useful. Cmouse 06:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivia and OR. --Eyrian 17:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as above. user:Arthur_B
• Keep - the function of "Popular Culture" articles to to defend serious articles from being cluttered up by users, who want to add every passing reference that they have found to a subject. This keeps trivia and WP:OR off articles where it should not be. This also applies to a subsequent AFD nomination. Peterkingiron 23:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Better here than there" is not a good argument. There are not two tiers of articles—"serious" and "in popular culture." This is an article for deletion, and must be consistent with our policies for articles, including LIST, N, and OR. Since it's a hodgepodge of whatever nameless editors think might be related to gnosticism, it fails. Without a secondary source about popular portrayals of gnosticism, there are no sources to establish N, and nothing to guide us away from OR. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 08:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. This is definitely a legitimate topic, and I'm sure sources can be found. The page needs some work, of course, but it's much more solid than most "in popular culture" pages. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. --PEAR (talk) 10:09, 7 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.