Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area 51 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 sourced material back to the main article. --Haemo (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Area 51 in popular culture

Area 51 in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

bog standard IPC article. Will ^(talk) 16:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong DeleteSelective merge - This can very easily be a section on the article about Area 51. There is no need to fork this off.Only those sections which are cited should be merged to Area 51, the rest needs to go.LonelyBeacon 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It's pages like this that contribute to the high number of low quality articles on Wikipedia. Spellcast 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Agreed. Although the article doesn't quite say so, most of this appears to be references to a secret government location being visited or mentioned, and it's referred to as "Area 51". Or, if it's a very sophisticated parody, "Area 52". There's little worth merging. Mandsford 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge back to Area 51 with radical trim. The Area 51 article has been beset by irrelevant trivia IPC (which obscures the limited but interesting and worthwhile fictional mentions). I've tried to build consensus for (what seems to me like) a reasonable standard for inclusion to the Area 51 IPC, but I've had no response - see the discussion at Talk:Area 51#Popular culture lists. Simply deleting stuff without that consensus is a band-aid solution, as all the irrelevant stuff will just creep incrementally back. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as an indiscrminate trivia directory. While it is unfortunate that editors insist on adding this sort of worthless "somebody said Area 51 on TV" material to the main article, creating dumping ground articles to keep the main article clean is not an appropriate solution. Otto4711 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Keeping this around can help the Area 51 article. That article is a mess. Cluttering the Area 51 article with the popular culture information, however trimmed it might get, does not help distinguish the real world history from the movies, etc. I realize that sounds like I'm advocating creating a dumping ground to keep the main article clean, but that doesn't have to be the case. Keeping the main article clean is very important, and this article can help. All we have to do is establish standards. Plenty of "in popular culture" articles work very well. (That's not an "other crap exists" argument. It's saying to use those others as models to make this one work.) Wryspy 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• a dumping ground that's exactly what you're suggesting. Regardless of how well its maintained. Trivia sections add nothing to articles. If references in pop culture are really that necessary for understanding a particular subject then work it in to the rest of the article properly. I haven't seen a trivia/pop culture section in an article yet that's lead me to any greater understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have, plenty of times. Why are you assuming every reader will have the same experience you do? Torc2 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Then demonstrate one where it was beneficial to an article and really lead to a greater understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Some of the more important ones may be worth a mention in Area 51 but it isn't worth a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but improve with references and more prose. Definitely notable topic that has had tremendous influence on popular video game, film, and television culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Clearly a sub-article of the main Area 51 article. Merging it back in would make that article too long and stylistically awkward. This really should be treated as a content of that article rather than judged in complete isolation.Torc2 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be Sourced. Otherwise, merge. 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)

• So you're suggesting merging unsourcable information? Otto4711 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Bearian, I added a reference section to get the ball rolling. Sorry, I don't have more time, but I'm grading. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sourcing doesn't make this information any less trivial and non-important to the understanding of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think you have an uphill battle to prove references about "Area 51 in Popular Culture" don't add a level of understanding to an article called Area 51 in popular culture. At the very least, the references satisfy WP:V and WP:N enough to allow the article to be kept. Torc2 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• The claim was made that this was a sub-article of Area 51. Sources or not don't allow the article to be kept.There are more policies out there that govern an article than that. Including WP:NOT. We don't collect every single trivial piece of information about a subject and store it on wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 13:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep But improve. A cleanup tag would be appropriate here too, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

  How would you improve it? Its a list of trivial information about the subject which doesn't really tell you anything about the subject than "these pop culture things thought this was worth being mentioned". A quick paragraph with a few citations can convey that information to the reader without the need for an exhaustive and unnecessary list.--Crossmr (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete These don't add anything to the greater understanding of the subject. If any of these items are truly notable enough to add to greater understanding of the subject they should be in the main article and explained properly.--Crossmr (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. Seal Clubber (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability of Area 51/Groom Lake's cultural influence is established by reliable sources including books such as Weird Las Vegas and Nevada: Your Alternative Travel Guide to Sin City and the Silver State, and academic papers such as The flight of the ordinary: narrative, poetics, power and UFOs in the American uncanny. "Not adding anything to understanding the subject", "useless", and "worthless" are subjective value judgements which are not reasons for deleting popular culture articles and lists when there are clearly a significant number of Wikipedia editors and readers who independently find them valuable and useful. DHowell (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete trivia list. Notable, referenced content can be blended into the main article. Peter Fleet (talk) 09:15, 7 December 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.