Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Orff's O Fortuna 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 redirect to O Fortuna (Orff). Redirect to preserve history after a merge has been performed Tone 06:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture[edit]

[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)

Excessive pop culture trivia - article relies heavily on unreliable sources such as IMDB, WhoSampled and YouTube links to songs that use it. Waxworker (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this is excessive pop culture trivia more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the text and a few examples to Carmina Burana (Orff). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge This is one of the most (if not the most) widely used pieces of classical music used for dramatic effect in trailers and films, and probably not a single one of them uses it in any way that is relevant to the work itself. This list will be huge if anyone ever attempted to even make it a fraction of being complete (thankfully nobody seems to have expended the effort, or I'd feel very bad for them). Any actually relevant and notable examples can be merged into the article about the work itself. EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, you'll find that, as always, that wasn't the idea. Sweeping unwanted content under the rug, out of sight, was the idea. See Special:Diff/309333638 and Special:Diff/309333686. As noted at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing the cycle is to split off the part of the article that one doesn't want, and rather than just blank the content, make a new article with all of the unwanted content elsewhere. Then someone, like you here, advocates merging back in when inevitably the "in popular culture" article gets nominated for deletion, and around the cycle we go again. Benzedrine in popular culture (AfD discussion) is now on its second trip around this loop, notice, after the first split-off article having been deleted through Amphetamine in popular culture (AfD discussion). It has happened many times over the years, including at Homelessness in popular culture (AfD discussion), Syrinx in popular culture (AfD discussion), King's Lynn in popular culture (AfD discussion), Tang in popular culture (AfD discussion), and elsewhere. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Merging, as suggested above, would be the worst outcome. As already mentioned here, none of the uses in popular culture has anything to do with Orff's work. Since splitting it, the main article has been free of these entries. That article doesn't need constant attention, and people can still indulge here in "I heard it today on xxx – I must add that to the article." I know this is not a Wikipedia policy based argument, but it's the better of two poor situations. BTW, and batting away WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, intitle:in popular culture shows this article is not alone. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet 08:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – trivia magnet. There are quite enough articles to handle the reception history of Carl Orff's "O Fortuna". Trivia that don't belong in a reception history narrative of another article should hardly get a separate article. O Fortuna discography might be viable for listing recordings, but not this trivia magnet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Consensus There is no consensus to delete the article at this time. ——Serial 08:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as it happens, I was reminded yesterday [yet again] that we do not have an article about O Fortuna (Orff) -- just Carmina Burana (Orff) and O Fortuna the poem. So I started one. I dare say that's the best target for this (but, as usual, I think the bar should be high for any "in popular culture" sourcing). Of course, as I type this, the material has been copied out of the article I started yesterday and pasted into the article about the poem without attribution, so that's a separate thing to talk about elsewhere and may again complicate the correct merge target. Hmm. Ultimately I don't think we should have an article for "in popular culture" trivia alone. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I merged whatever is salvageable from the Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture article to O Fortuna. Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture can now safely be deleted. No non-trivia information is lost. I don't understand Michael Bednarek's defense of the indefensible in their !vote above: they suggest to use Carl Orff's O Fortuna in popular culture as a WP:CONTENTFORK for information that should not be in Wikipedia in the first place. What doesn't belong in Wikipedia, doesn't belong in either article: throwing cruft from one corner to another is hardly a solution for anything, and not in any guise a defensible solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is trending delete or merge, but some more discussion in the light of recent edits/article creation might make for a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2021 (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.