Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:20, 21 December 2007

Frogs in popular culture

• Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture
• Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Frogs in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nearly all unsalvageable trivia that's hard to read. Hardly anything is referenced. Anything we might want to keep can be easily incorporated into the Frog article. See Misplaced Pages:"In popular culture" articles and Misplaced Pages:Trivia sections. Phoenix-wiki  17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment How "unsalvageable" is it? Has an effort been made to source any of these statements? I'm seeing Talk page complaints, but not salvage attempts. I'm also seeing a former AfD that suggests no progress is being made on fixing what was wrong 4 months ago. I would suggest sourcing what can be, removing what cannot be, and trimming the IPC lists to items that demonstrate something (other than "I saw a frog"). This may be a case of WP:PROBLEM. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC) edg ☺ ☭ 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, hardly any effort has been put towards fixing it, to be honest, but I strongly doubt we'd be able to find references for most of it--Phoenix-wiki  18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Merge and Delete. A good article could be made on this topic, which seems notable enough, but there is no sign this article ever will become encyclopedic. I have merged Frogs and the French (sourced), Frog proverbs and Frogs in Egyptian mythology (both unsourced) into Frog for consideration by editors there. The rest, if kept, can only be the foundation for a rambling IPC list. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There is no such action. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • If you insist. Delete. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Proverbs are also merged to Wikiquote. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'll bet this can be tidied up to resemble Cultural depictions of spiders. Articles like this would be a good start. And this book has a chapter about frogs in folklore. Frogs: Art, Legend and History sounds most helpful, although I can't get a good description of it online. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and execute Zagalejo's suggestion. Lots of dross in this ore, but with the refining fire of sources, this is at least a nugget, if not a full bar, of a cool, interesting, and useful article. I note, btw, that WP:NOEFFORT is an argument to leap over. Ribbit! —Quasirandom (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as it contains prose and is referenced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • These references don't really make a case for this article. Of the 5, only Why do the French call the British 'the roast beefs'? (now merged to Frog) applies. An article for boiling frog exists elsewhere, and the IMDB link documents a spotting, but is otherwise uninformative on the article topic. The other two are science links not relevant to "Popular culture". / edg ☺ ☭ 20:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • David P. Badger's Frogs (S.l.: Voyageur Press, 2001) includes chapters on "frogs in popular culture, their physical characteristics and behavior, and environmental challenges." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there'll be independent refs to add. Will get to this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - largely in poor shape currently, but there is referenced material and it is patently salvageable, contrary to the nom. --Dweller (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• The Continuum Encyclopedia of Animal Symbolism in Art (ISBN 0826415253} devotes pages 188 to 191 to frogs, beginning with Neolithic representations, and including Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Aztec, Olmec, Moche, Mayan, Japanese, Hindu, and Christian frog symbolisms. Misplaced Pages should be no less of an encyclopaedia than that. An administrator hitting the delete button is not required to make that so. What is required is that editors hit their edit buttons and make the article better, using ordinary editing tools in the ordinary way.

  And yes, renaming the article to Cultural depictions of frogs is certainly the way to encourage editors to stop thinking that a collection of examples of frogs in 20th/21st century pop culture somehow magically forms a coherent article when it exceeds some critical mass. Administrator privileges are not required in order to rename articles, either, though. Uncle G (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The references being Googled up in this Afd could surely help one write a very good article on Frogs in popular culture. Not like the trivial fork nominated for deletion here. / edg ☺ ☭ 22:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    • An administrator hitting a delete button is no part of the article improvement process that makes poor articles better. Editors actually hitting their edit buttons is. We all have an edit button. AFD is not cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There's lots more to be said on the subject. Frog Went A-Courting, Ethel the Frog and more. And, by coincidence, I bought two Frog bicycle lights today. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep & Comment - This is a clearly notable topic and deserves to be included. I've changed the title to fit in with most other pop culture pages (Cultural depictions of spiders & Cultural depictions of lions to name a few), and this also makes it sound more sophisticated. JSYK. Cheers, Spawn Man 03:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I know this is a poor argument for this article, but...I like reading stuff like this. It's kind of fun and enjoyable. I like going to bed at night knowing there are cool articles like this waiting to be read in Misplaced Pages. Ozmaweezer (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Indiscernible or unclassifiable topic)
• AfD debates