Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gargoyles in fiction

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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gargoyles in fiction

Gargoyles in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Trivial unsourced list of mentions. Yet another "let's clean the article by moving this section to a new article". CONDENSE instead of just moving elsewhere. RobJ1981 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - with a bit of work and reference adding, this can be merged into another article (Gargoyle for example?). But it needs sorting out first. Lradrama 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect without deleting whatever can be referenced. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we can have some leeway with our content here. See also Ross, Theodore. "Gargoyles in Motion: On the Transmigration of Character from Page to Screen and Related Questions on Literature and Film," College English 39.3 (Nov., 1977): 371-382. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Your "reference" above states at the bottom of the page: "Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Gargoyles in fiction", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License." Ergo, not a WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 14:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And unfortunately, the article in College English is not about Gargoyles in a literal sense, but about stereotyped characters in general. It has one sentence about Hugo's Hunchback to explain the allusive title, and that is about it. The main subjects of the article are actually Russell's film of Lawrence'sWomen in Love, and Griffith's film Way Down East. DGG (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• As opposed to Gargoyles in fact? Merge anything worth keeping into Gargoyle. --Evb-wiki 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is bigger than the main article - and filled with trivial citations with no references. The title is "In Fiction", but the first sentence says "in contemporary fiction", so the whole basis of the article as written is bogus. There's just nothing worthwhile to merge here. MarkBul 16:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Most of these are non-notable appearances, the notable ones (if there are any) can be listed in the main article. Crazysuit 01:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Another one of those "I spy with my little eye a [name of item/being/event]". If any of these appearances are particularly significant and sourced, there's a good main article for them. If not, they can go. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Subsequent thought: Given that Gargoyles aren't real, they're pretty much only ever going to be in fiction. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Last time I checked the bloody great big stone moinstrosities up the top of cathedrals were gargoyles. Artw 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • A good point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, there isn't anything worth merging here. --68.163.65.119 16:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

this appears to be a SPA, devoted wholly to deleting in popular culture material DGG (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This is just another pile of steaming trivia cruft and its starting to rot. Burntsauce 21:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

language, language. DGG (talk) 00:20, 28 September 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.