Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve 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 merge to Mitochondrial Eve. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture

Merge back into parent article from whence it came. Article contains a list of two examples, which is not reason enough for it to have been split from the parent article - even if it had been a source of contention amongst editors there. Khalfani Khaldun 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is agreement on the article to split, in line with WP:Handling trivia and Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While most of the other editors of Mitochondrial Eve have remained silent (which I understand you may take to be agreement), as a user who does not regularly edit that article I have brought the split to AfD because this is a case that I believe should be looked at by editors who aren't tied heavily to personal opinions about the parent article. I believe we are going to find that a wider group of editors believes that splitting the content off to get it away from opposing editors is not a proper way to deal with a debate, and from WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Khalfani Khaldun 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An example is Osama bin Laden in popular culture which is separate from the main article. I think this is a win-win situation because there are a number of editors who are against a pop culture section in the article Mitochondrial Eve. There was some edit warring over the issue, which has since ended with the creation of the popular culture article. Should the popular culture article be merged back, it is sure to reignite debate and edit wars regarding its inclusion. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A list with only two entries (and a pop-culture list at that) won't be kept, though. So while I appreciate you were trying to resolve a conflict, in this case, it's no solution. All it'll result in is split-delete-merge-resume war.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to edit-warring at the parent article I guess then. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it appears to be just name-dropping references (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), and nobody has written about this subject in reliable sources (WP:OR). WillOakland (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Mitochondrial Eve. Not enough content on its own, but content worth keeping. Spinach Monster (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into parent article Mitochondrial Eve. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a separate article. Although short the list is bound to grow as the concept becomes more established. There's plenty of precedent for In Pop Culture articles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 00:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to help "establish" any subject, nor are articles supposed to be kept in anticipation of subjects becoming "established." This is understood pretty much everywhere on Wikipedia except for IPC lists, where certain trivia afficionados think their consensus overrides core policy. WillOakland (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference in question isn't significant to the topic and should be removed per WP:IPC which states, "If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it should be possible to find a reliable secondary source that supports that judgment." Unless there is a source that can support the importance of the BSG reference to the subject, it doesn't belong in the article. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not big enough to justify a split, not appropriate to spin it out just to get rid of it. You'll have to form a consensus for its retention or deletion in the parent article.--Father Goose (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as completely unnotable. Content merged back to the parent article will not survive under {{trivia}}. The precedent is actually delete for "in pop culture" articles on far more notable entities, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balder in popular culture. --dab (𒁳) 13:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent is inconsistent at best, and dependent on who shows up to a given AfD. You've cherry-picked an AfD that was dominated by "anti-IPC" respondents; the same AfD could be run today and it would probably be "no consensus". Further, WP:TRIVIA (and its companion template {{trivia}}) does not advocate the deletion of pop culture information on the basis that it is "trivia". Regardless, these points are moot; the article being discussed right now is too short to have been an appropriate candidate for splitting in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a "completely unnnotable" subject can have 358986 goggle hits.... --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. WillOakland (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: it's now 529823 ghits (that's just for "Mitochondrial Eve" AND "Battlestar Galactica", BTW). --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try 348 hits, which appear to be almost entirely blogs and plot summaries of the episode. BTW, I don't mind if there is an article about the episode. WillOakland (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We must be running different searches then, cos I get the higher number. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete content fork and waste of time. Nothing of "mergeable" value here. If there's something notable to be written about this in the Mitochondrial Eve, that can be done by editors at that article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this article nominated for deletion with a merge request? This is exactly why Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion should exist, so people don't think AfD is the only way to get things done. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was very clear that discussing this merger with most of the editors at Mitochondrial Eve was not going to lead anywhere, and as that page is not yet ready for use this is the only place I knew to try and get input for more editors. Khalfani Khaldun 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content-fork. This shouldn't be merged back as it is trivia which is wholly unrelated to the subject of the parent article. Them From Space 05:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly unrelated? I don't think so, else there would be no "in pop culture" articles. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for IPC articles, historically, is to dump content that can't be rewritten into prose because that would require a synthesis, and can't be removed due to objections from trivia buffs. In other words, exactly what happened here. WillOakland (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not wholly unrelated. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by that was that the individual blurbs had more to do with other subjects than this one. In short, they were passing mentions, and passing mentions are trivia. Unless the trivia in itself is notable we shouldn't have an article about the trivia in itself. Them From Space 17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mention is hardly passing. In Greg Egan's novel, for example, it is central. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mentions are important to the stories themselves, but not to the topic of mitochondrial eve, which is why they don't belong in the mitochondrial eve article. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what you mean by the term "mitochondrial eve". If you just mean the scientific usage they you would be correct, but the term covers more than that, including its representation in popular culture. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsplit and delete the content fork. A 2-item list is just too short for something that has a primary article. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now a 3-item list. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per nom et al. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no use for main article, since this is just a trivia section. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and expand and improve until its enough for an article. This simply is too small at present. DGG (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no existing GFDL burden, no substantial new content to merge – a mention of Greg Egan's short story can be rewritten from new reliable sources. The "unsplit" was a reversion with no changes to that section, and there have been no additions since. Flatscan (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For closing admin's convenience, diffs between revisions referenced above and latest: Mitochondrial Eve in popular culture Mitochondrial Eve (unfortunately, the changes don't line up properly) Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Mitochondrial Eve. The above comment only leaves me wondering: why should attribution of any changes (even small ones) be eliminated, edit history be deleted, and content be entirely rewritten, just so we can have a redlink at this article title? Meh, redirects are cheap. DHowell (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is useless on its own, put it back in with the main article, keep the information and make it one click closer to the people who want it. Me lkjhgfdsa (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2009 (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.