Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecumenopolis 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 due to the consensus that this has problems with original research, reliable sourcing, and being a loose association of items. — TKD::Talk 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ecumenopolis in popular culture

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

Trivial unsourced cluttered list of mentions. RobJ1981 05:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete isnt it original research to put these mentions under "Ecumenopolis" ? Corpx 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, while I agree that the list needs a good cleanup, I don't believe this is original research and provides a useful resource to reference this new word against (I hadn't heard of it before) - Fosnez 07:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I am with Fosnez, just need a clean up and provide references and notes if possible. Carlosguitar 12:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - in the absence of reliable sources identifying each of these as ecumenopolises this is OR, and it's also a directory of loosely associated items. Otto4711 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Fosnez. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, violates WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 18:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a one-line dicdef and a trivia section, both of which are clear violations of policy — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This article is just as long as the original subject. It's barely a notable term to begin with, it could easily be merged and widdled. Dannycali 22:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As it currently stands, none of these cities are in fact backed up with citations demonstrating either (A) that they do what is claimed or (B) that they are referred to with this word. Given that there's a list of five or so in the main article on the term, I think that's really all we need. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:49, 30 August 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.