Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comets 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comets in popular culture

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

Spot-the-reference trivia collection. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Proposer has not provided any basis for deletion. Nothing in the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia" has any bearing upon the deletion proposal. RandomCritic 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• It includes a prohibition on trivia collections. I argue that that is precisely what this article is. --Eyrian 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not include a prohibition on trivia collections It says that Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. And so it should not be--it can, however, contain information on culturally significant trivia. Similarly, WP is not a list, but it does contain lists. DGG (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is laughably fallacious. Ah, so as long as it's only individual articles that violate, and not the entire encyclopedia, it's alright? No, no, it's ok for this article to just be a primary source document, as long as it's not all articles. It's alright for this article to be a soapbox, as long as it's not all articles. These things obviously apply to individual articles. --Eyrian 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete - trivia at its most trivial --Orange Mike 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree completely with Orange Mike. This article is full of other awesome references just like this one: "In the movie TMNT Halley's Comet is mentioned by Michelangelo. In reply to Donatello's explaining of how the monsters are coming to New York, Michelangelo says: 'Oh, so it's like Halley's Comet, only monsters come out?'" WP:NOT#INFO, unsourced, unencyclopedic listcruft. María (críticame) 20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It is also full of references and discussion of material like Brin's Heart of the Comet which is not in the least trivial, and is certainly primarily on the subject, and the motion picture Deep Impact, which is not quite as important but certainly relevant, and so on. I'd say it's about 50:50. DGG (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment The Brin reference is best placed on the Heart of the Comet page as a backward reference to Hailey's comet. And for a reference to Deep Impact (film), we need only place a link to extinction level event on the comet page and then add a brief and sourced section on the E.L.E. page about how and why the possibility of an E.L.E. has inspired science fiction writers. We do not require huge lists to have the relevant information contained on the Wiki CaveatLector^Talk 06:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment There is not one verifiable third party reference in the entire article that establishes the subject matter's importance in popular culture; it's instead a long, tedious list of mostly trivial mentions of comets. Why you can continuously attempt to argue that this information, and others like it, is encyclopedic is beyond me. María (críticame) 12:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, violates WP:TRIVIA, no references, OR. Corvus cornix 21:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Detonate with a deletion bomb, lest it strike the Earth and destroy all life. (OK, so the vote on Judas is making me have a bit of fun...) CaveatLector^Talk 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced and trivia collection.--JForget 22:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Burn with fire Delete- per all of the above. These "X in pop culture" lists are starting to get on my nerves. --Boricuaeddie 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

and it produces the inspiration for comments whose role in the debate is to demonstrate the cute things that one can say, rather than discuss based on on the contents of the article and WP policy. DGG (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, what? Please excuse me, but my limited ability to communicate in English does not permit me to understand the meaning of your message. --Boricuaeddie 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll summarize. He's assuming bad faith and becoming angry that some editors' annoyance with the commonality of these 'pop culture' articles is causing them to use satire. CaveatLector^Talk 06:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I apologize if it made you angry. I still think it should be deleted.--Boricuaeddie 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Trivia collection, WP:5 Corpx 02:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Facts can be covered appropriately by lists, topics cannot. Golfcam 23:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Although I have no doubt that there will be more nominations of outer space things in pop culture, comets are an event as much as they are an astronomical body. This article does need some heavy editing, but it doesn't need to be tossed out. Mandsford 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable, loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 04:58, 30 July 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.