Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 14:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classical elements in popular culture

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another article that is little more than a collection of mostly uncited trivia. If you want this type of content, go to TV Tropes. Their purpose is to list every single time that random things have appeared in various fictional works. This is not Wikipedia's job, however. There is also a clear issue with the scope of the article. No attempt was made to create reasonable criteria for inclusion here. This list is an indiscriminate collection of tangentially related things. Many of the examples given are not even usages of the classical elements. Instead, several other elements are discussed here. Honestly, this article is probably too broad to exist. At best, this might be a candidate for destruction and recreation. However, the sheer number of times that creators have used the classical elements in their works likely precludes the recreation of this article. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Philosophy, Mythology, and Popular culture. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The previous nominations were in 2007 and 2008, when standards for fancruft were very low, and Keep votes were based largely on the potential of an encyclopedic article or meager attempts to add encyclopedic content about the topic while separating the examples. What little content in the current article is not indiscriminate examples does not directly address the topic of popular culture with reliable sources; such content should be based on academic work about fantasy, sort of like what replaced Far future in fiction after the old article was deleted at AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The vast bulk of this trivia list is unsourced, and some of it seems like outright WP:OR that doesn't pertain to the actual subject at hand. Even the "Reception" section is misleading, as it does not, in fact, describe or summarize any kind of discussion about the reception of classical elements in popular culture, but are merely just more trivia statements along the lines of "this book talks about the subject". Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Example farm that is largely original research. Wikipedia isn't TVTropes, there is already a page for that. [1] ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:TenPoundHammer/Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Vastly unsourced, completely OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a thing, but the current article is standard WP:TNT material due to WP:NOTTVTROPES and so on. Ping User:Uncle G, User:TompaDompa, this does look fun for a rewrite project... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 27 April 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.