Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werewolves in popular culture

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 merge to

WP:CFORK). What content to merge (if any), and where to is up to interested editors. Sandstein 16:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Werewolves in popular culture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Werewolves in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost entirely unsourced and rampant listcruft that fails

WP:LISTN. The page werewolf fiction has the prose aspects of werewolves in popular culture, so this page is entirely unnecessary and was merely a misguided attempt to split off the crufty aspects of said page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Changing vote to merge or delete as long as it's OK to recreate this in a more reasonable format than what we currently have. I didn't fully appreciate the comments about how indiscriminate this list truly is until I started performing cleanup. This list is including anything that even whispers the name werewolf and as such, is pretty unwieldy. There's no context here either, so it's not much better than a defacto category page. This should definitely be merged with the article on werewolves in fiction and turned into a general page. I'd prefer the general title of pop culture, but fiction might still be doable since it would certainly limit the amount of content that could be added. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are going to attempt this task, bearing in mind the comments about the length and uselessness of the lists, note that the thematic breakdown in McMahon-Coleman & Weaver 2014 is not category of fiction but:
      • adolescence and lycanthropy as puberty
      • subversion of gender stereotypes
      • sexual attraction
      • lycanthropy as race
      • disability and difference
      • addictive behaviour
      • spirituality
    • Mann 2020 actually has a breakdown that is similar in parts, although Mann is addressing this as folkloric cycles. Mann's chapter 4, "Hounds of Love", deals with sexual attraction, for example. Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep that in mind, but right now I'm just removing the ones that are non-notable. Cleanup will have to be in stages, honestly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something else to keep in mind is that Uncle G is definitely right in that there are a lot of different ways to address this topic. It's also good to keep in mind that this also isn't limited to fiction as a rule. Werewolves are kind of pervasive in pop culture and do show up in ways outside of fiction - both real and not real. For example, medical conditions and commercials. There's cultural perspectives to consider - not mythology but like werewolves in modern culture. I can't remember the exact song, but an example would be this Japanese song that warned women that "men are wolves". That doesn't really fit into the realm of fiction. I do think that the page needs a big overhaul, but at some point there will be a list that would likely need to be somewhere. The ideal would be for it to turn into a page similar to Titanic in popular culture. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The work is notable enough to merit an article. If no article exists then there should be copious amounts of coverage to establish that the work would warrant its own article. An author or creator having an article wouldn't be enough. That would cut the list down to a third of what it is now.
  2. The werewolf is a prominent character of aspect in the work.
  3. There must be sourcing that identifies the character/aspect as a werewolf or lycanthropy. Shape-shifting should not be included as this is far too nebulous. This means that even if the shapeshifter can transform into a werewolf, it wouldn't fit under this list unless there's a lot of coverage discussing this in werewolf territory.
This doesn't mean that the work can't be mentioned in the prose, but the general gist would be that they'd have to be notable enough for an article to justify inclusion in the list. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is in fact encouraged.
Avilich (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It's pretty clear from
MOS:POPCULT has declared. Pilaz (talk) 10:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. The only thing people agree is that a list, per definition and common sense, should be in bullet or table format. But unless you want to move this to a list and then have this discussed with
WP:TNTable bullet point format. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think I understand your last comment (or it's not about
MOS:POPCULT). Maybe you meant to reply to my other nested comment above? Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Um, "regardless of where the material appears".
Avilich (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
list for navigation purposes, as Pilaz has already stated.) Daranios (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That's in another paragraph, from which the quoted excerpt doesn't pick up. Items can be listed either sections or separate articles, where you put them is a purely technical and irrelevant detail that has no bearing on their function and in the spirit of the guideline that covers them.
Avilich (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Avilich: I disagree with that reading. It's in the same section, preceding paragraph, so I still think that that refers to that. Your interpretation would mean that "In popular culture" and "Cultural references" should never be presented in list format, and I can hardly believe that's the intention. Also, the difference can be more than technical, if for a stand-alone list the function is navigation, and within an article it's elucidation of the topic's impact. Daranios (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
should never be presented in list format. Not something I ever said, I believe. You're of course right about functions, but this one in particular doesn't serve any function other than listing every single fictional topic in which werewolves are mentioned, which runs afoul of the spirit of POPCULT, regardless of what you think of its applicability. The deletion of "UN in popular culture" and its recreation as prose, along with the work of TompaDompa and Piotrus, are all results of POPCULT being applied broadly, and their successful nature imo confirm that the section vs. article distinction has no use or justification.
Avilich (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
can be solved by editing, maybe along the lines already outlined by ReaderofthePack. And then, in an improved form, I believe such a list can serve a navigation function of where the topic of werewolves notably appears to the interested reader, which goes beyond what's in Werewolf fiction. Daranios (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  1. Is Werewolves in popular culture a CFORK of...
    1. ... werewolf fiction? No. Werewolf fiction needs the list article to point to the exhaustive list of works about werewolves, since it cannot realistically discuss every work due to size constraints and the fact that many aren't covered in secondary sources. Similarly, the list article needs the prose article to discuss them (if it discussed them, it would no longer be a list). As long as the list article doesn't do the job of the prose article (doesn't engage in commentary, analysis, etc), then they are mutually beneficial to one other, to our readers, and to our editors. If you delete one, you should expect spillover from the deleted one to the kept one.
    2. ... list of werewolves? Yes. They are both lists that serve the same purpose. Fundamentally, both cover fictional representations of werewolves in popular media. A merge is required.
  2. Should this information be presented in list form? Yes. A list serves useful navigational purposes, allows itself to be exhaustive if it complies with
    list of ICBMs
    (even though some items don't have their own articles), but is it a sufficient reason to delete or prune the latter list?
  3. Is this list compliant with...
    1. ...
      WP:INDISCRIMINATE
      ? Yes. At the time of my writing, this argument has not been substantiated to merit a discussion. Will amend if it evolves.
    2. ...
      werewolves in popular culture, we can satisfy its requirements (the entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.) for literature[1][2][3][4]; film[5][6]; television[6][7]; music[8]; video games[9]; anime and manga[10]; as well as folktales (not in the list)[11]. Categories that miss in-depth coverage: (non-manga) comics, (non-anime) cartoons. There are some excerpts here and there about comics (There was a long footnote about werewolves in Marvel comics
      , but I'm excluding it since it's only a footnote). I wouldn't oppose pruning the comics and cartoons list if they aren't covered by any work on werewolves.
    3. ...
      WP:PRIMARY
      #3, which expressly allows to use primary sources to make non-controversial, factual and verifiable assertions regarding the presence of werewolves in a particular work.
Verdict: the undisputed content of the article should be kept and merged into
WP:CFORK concerns. A merge discussion should be in-depth regarding what should be moved. Special thanks to Uncle G for linking some of the literature above. Pilaz (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ISBN 9781786834577
    .
  2. ISBN 9780879728601
    .
  3. ISBN 9780719089343
    .
  4. ISBN 0486430901
    .
  5. ISBN 9781474441148
    .
  6. ^
    ISBN 9780786492503
    .
  7. ISBN 9781315179414
    .
  8. OCLC 933441903
    .
  9. ISBN 9780719089343
    .
  10. ISSN 1934-2489
    .
  11. ISBN 9781137526335
    .

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:51, 6 March 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werewolves_in_popular_culture&oldid=1076916758"