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 --Haemo 01:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated pieces of trivia that were split off of a main article instead of just being deleted, flavored with an unhealthy dose of original research. Seeks to capture every appearance of this entity, or a character that resembles the entity in the unsourced opinion of the random editor who spotted it, or every character who wears a hat or carries a stick that looks like the one that the entity wears or carries, in a list that tells the reader nothing abut the character, nothing about the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, nothing about their relationship to each other (since there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 14:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "Foo in popular culture" articles are always targets for fanboyism and original research. /Blaxthos 14:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more bad IPC stuff that has no place here. Eusebeus 15:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violates WP:NOT, too much trivia and no sources.--JForget 22:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate list of non-notable trivia. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate trivia (see WP:NOT#TRIVIA)--Cailil ^talk 22:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per list of loosely associated items / trivia Corpx 00:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if anyone is prepared to maintain it as an article on the cultural uses of Sun Wukong (the Monkey King). Given that such a character is important in many games, it would be better to organize it as a paragraph listing the games, with a suitable reference. Alternatively, split out the game material--although not an expert, it is certainly my impressions that these are very much harder to source adequately since the game reviews tend not to talk much about the specific stock characters besides listing them. The actually more distinctive uses could then be separately discussed. The arguments for outright deletion rest again on the fact that some of the content may be unimportant, an excellent reason for editing, not deletion. The error of this argument can be seen by considering its applicability elsewhere, if we removed instead of improved every article with any low-quality content. The real reason for deletion, as Blaxthos correctly says, is that some eds. consider the use of characters in creative works unimportant as a matter of principle. That's their own limitation. I can't convince them that they ought to consider it important to them, just as nobody will be able to convince me that cricket is important to me. But I leave the cricket fans to write their articles in peace. group projects require mutual tolerance. DGG (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, at the risk of becoming less-than-civil, I am getting pretty fucking tired of these sniffy little "I don't try to delete things I don't approve of, I just leave them alone" asides in any number of your AFD comments. You don't have the first damn idea what interests me and what doesn't, and that goes for pretty much everyone else whom your comments encompass. Your assumption that we don't get the notion that how characters are used in creative works is important is nothing more than an insult. Who the hell are you to assume what I think about anything "as a matter of principle"? Have I said that I consider how characters are used in fiction to be unimportant? In fact, I have in several AFDs argued in favor of keeping articles that are actually about the use of a character or story outside the original. The problem with these articles is not that they are about the use of characters in creative works. The problem with these articles is that they are not about the use of characters in creative works. Otto4711 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's comment may have been a presumptuous generalization, but it avoided personal attack. Can this reply be either moved to a User talk page or (preferably) rephrased per WP:CIVIL? There may be a good argument in there but it is discredited by tone. / edg ☺ ★ 07:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 00:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questionas pointed out in a number of other article discussions, having a common theme, or making use of a common character is a close association. could you explain why you think is "loose" ? To me, a loose association would be a list of list of items have numerals in their name (that was an actual list, appropriately deleted at Afd; I agree with the guideline against what are truly loosely associated items.) DGG (talk) 05:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The mere presence of a character does not by definition create a strong association between the various items in which that character appears. Otto4711 17:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per per nom, JForget, Corpx. / edg ☺ ★ 06:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because this article provides a convenient list of some of Sun Wukong's appearances in popular culture and thereby shows Sun Wukong's cultural influence and significance. I do, however, strongly agree that references should be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:47, 3 September 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.