Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depictions of God in popular culture

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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Although I find the delete rationale fairly compelling, since this is the first nomination for deletion, and the article is fairly new, I'm giving weight to the argument that this article can be cleaned up, sourced, and become something encyclopedic. If that doesn't occur, the matter can be revisited. Shimeru 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Depictions of God in popular culture

Depictions of God in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Loosely associated facts about God (monotheistic, at least) in popular culture. Don't be fooled by the title: this is just a list of trivia. It's unselective and random, and very very far from incomplete. This should be deleted per WP:AVTRIV as a trivia section with no article.. but beyond that, God is all over all aspects of culture, and about the only general things that can be said about how God is depicted are already said at God#Popular culture. Realistically, none of these facts will ever be incorporated into the text of this or any other article about God (although individual items can be found, better covered, elsewhere, for instance South Park#Religion.) Mangojuice^talk 18:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete an article with "popular culture" in its title better convince me quickly that it's good enough to be an article, and this doesn't. JuJube 20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a long version of stuff we don't need. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 03:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete as a thoroughly indiscriminate list seeking to capture every mention of "God" in any medium with no regard to the importance or unimportance of the reference. The list could theoretically encompass any time any character anywhere says "God" or "by God" or "goddamn." Otto4711 03:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment no, it can't include pop culture items on the basis of dialogue that has exclamations and swear words incorporating "God" or variations thereof, according to the article's own description of what to put in it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Really? Not sure what article you're looking at but the one I see doesn't put any such restriction on its subject matter. What specifically in the article are you suggesting places such a restriction on the list? Otto4711 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• For example, these quotes from the article make it pretty clear to me: "Monotheistic God as depicted in popular culture." (the first sentence), "People who have portrayed God:" (the second sentence) and the section title "God's appearance". It says nothing that implicitly includes weird things like swear words, and everything it says seems to imply excluding them. Plus, there is the article title. How can a swear word be a "depiction" of God? Read the dictionary entry for "depiction" if you don't understand this. Furthermore, if you think the article can be cleaned up by tightening the definitions, go ahead. Cleanup is not equivalent to needing to be deleted unless it is very serious indeed. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, I know what the word "depiction" means. I don't need a smarmy reminder of how to use a dictionary. Otto4711 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry if I seemed smarmy, but with the particular argument that you were using, it really did seem as if you didn't understand the definition of "depiction". Otherwise, how could someone argue that a fictional character in a movie who exclaimed "God damn" was depicting God? I tend to assume that in most cases more explanation of my position is better than less, as it lessens misunderstandings and because statements like "it should be obvious that X is true" come off as rude. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's how it seems ill-defined to me: there's a world of difference between "Actors who have portrayed God," which is very specific and probably reasonable, and "Depictions of God" which seems to include just about any reference to God. Okay, I don't see how swearing would make it on the list, I don't think it's THAT ill-defined, but just about everything else would be okay: ads with a picture of God, any dialogue with God, religious visions, God-like figures that are like the monotheistic God but aren't necessarily exactly the same, poems about God. I'm not exaggerating here, and I believe that references much like all of these already exist in the article. There are discriminating topics one could write, but this isn't one, and it doesn't serve as the basis for one either. Mangojuice^talk 17:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Smerge or redirect with/to List of appearances of God in fiction. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, extremely indiscriminate, God(s?) have been depicted countless times in "popular culture" over centuries. Krimpet 04:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment did you read the article? It's the monotheistic god. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reasons given to delete it so far that are actually grounded in Wikipedia policy (at least, not in any way that I interpret it). Furthermore, the article needs organization, but it looks like the inclusion criteria as defined in the article itself is defined well enough that the article can't grow beyond bounds - God as a character seldom appears in media. After all, this isn't Religion in popular culture it is Depictions of God in popular culture, limited to the monotheistic God at that. Claiming that articles including the words "in popular culture" are inherently bad isn't arguing according to Wikipedia's deletion criteria, and neither is saying that the article needs improvement. Come up with new reasons that are actually grounded in policy rather than opinion, and I may change my vote. Drop a note on my talk page if you actually come up with something new. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite Clearly notable topic, but this particular article is horribly written.--Sefringle 02:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Mermaid and Sefringle. The topic is encylopedic and many of the entries are worthwhile. The article needs more prose and restructuring but it has potential. --Richard 05:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to respond to this one point. Per WP:AVTRIV, of course, the lists of trivia should be integrated into text and not stand indefinitely as lists of trivia. However, the more I think about what that would be like, the more I think the resulting text would be original research: an attempt to draw broad conclusions based directly on primary sources. Mangojuice^talk 17:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree that the temptation to indulge in OR is high. We would have to find some scholarly work in Literature, History of Art or History of Film that discussed the ways that God is depicted in literature, art and film. --Richard 06:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It could potentially be a decent article at some point, but this is not it nor is it a basis for one. This is just a list of trivia with no secondary sources. Wickethewok 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to a more general article: Depictions of God. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Kinda hard to "merge" one article into a new article. But ridding the title of "in popular culture" would help avoid more cruft contributions. Mangojuice^talk 04:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - good subject for an article, horrible subject for an indiscriminate list ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

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.