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 was no consensus to delete JodyB _talk 02:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another unsourced "article" consisting of mere trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced trivia. Ample precedent for deletion exists, see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 2001: A Space Odyssey, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Club in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture. MER-C 12:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 12:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Not indiscriminate, not mere trivia, and more than just a vanilla list. This is good information for anyone looking into Norse mythology. There could be a lot more info here (especially the language section, I may add to that myself), and for some things independent sources need to be referenced, but overall the article is valuable and appropriate. Capmango 15:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A potentially good article with some good content, but poorly arranged and in need of purging. Items like "such-and-such was inspired by Norse mythology" without particular examples vitiate the usefulness of the page. Still, deletion seems like overkill. RandomCritic 20:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Named precedents describe the influence on popular culture of single pieces of art; how the cultural heritage of an entire civilisation impacts popular culture is another matter entirely. That being said, this article needs some serious overhaul, because as a long list, it isn't that useful. More article, less list. But deletion is overkill. Cayafas 21:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A problem with ___IPC articles is that the authors want to include everything. If it had been limited to the days of the week, a few references to Thor and... whoever the other Norse gods were, it might have been passable. However, this inclusion is illustrative: "In the 20th episode of the first season of the show Metalocalypse, Skwisgaar Skwigelf referred to the name of Odin with the sentence 'What in the fucking names of Odin?!'. Skwigelf also references Valhalla in the sentence 'I will sees you in Valhalska.'" For that, I say, let's get rid of this Frigg-in' article. Mandsford 22:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Article simply needs work. :bloodofox: 23:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per many similar other noms with maybe some info to be transferred into the parent article.--JForget 01:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Capmango and Cayafas... Ranma9617 04:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep this is a closer call than most. There is more here than a list of cross-references; there seems to be some claim as to how the mythology was "reintroduced" - I've heard other versions mostly in the context of LOTR, but nothing pinned to WP:RSes. So I'm inclined to accept the topic as encyclopedic. However, what are needed are WP:RSes to back the facts. The standard for deletion based on lack of sources is that after some search, sources cannot be found. This AfD is the clarion call to the editors, find sources! Carlossuarez46 18:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Entirely unsourced and violates WP:NOT#INFO. Every small mention of any Norse god, myth, or story is indiscriminate as well as unencyclopedic. I think it is also important to point out that many of the keep reasonings above utilize WP:USEFUL. There is no reason to keep this article based on Wikipedia policy and/or guideline. María (críticame) 18:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Take it away, take it away, the awful thing. Entirely unsourced. It consists only of current advertising ephemera in list format. There are no unifying themes. This is not the yellow pages here. The articles should cover the mythology and if anyone sees a passing reference in a game or comic book they can look up the mythology. There must be hundreds of thousands of passing references. I don't know why these few were selected out for inclusion. Advertising opportunity?Dave 19:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is already a category for this topic, which itself needs to be cleaned up. This list provides nothing that the category cannot do better. CaveatLector^Talk 10:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep not indiscriminate ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable subject which covers a large part of popular culture ranging from Tolkien to Marvel comics. I'd really like the nominator to explain more in detail how he reasons in this case.--Berig 13:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but trim down the modern stuff. It's just a laundry list -- only the first two sections, which resemble an actual article, save this in my mind. --Haemo 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Like most "X in popular culture" articles, it's recentist and contains horrid trivia lists, but a legitimate article can be written on this topic. I'd be very surprised if there aren't academic books on the topic. But cut most of the "modern popular culture" section, and consider renaming something like Reception of Norse mythology. EALacey 14:45, 9 July 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.