Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leprechauns 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 no consensus. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leprechauns in popular culture

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

A page of WP:TRIVIA about Leprechauns. Nothing worth merging back to Leprechaun in my opinion. As it stands this is an indiscriminate collection of random facts (in violation of WP:NOT), and is furthermore completely unsourced. Articles like this are a bad idea; delete. Mangojuice^talk 22:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as there's already a popular culture section in the main Leprechaun article where notable and sources stuff like this could be. -FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Laddie, no, don't burn the house down! Trivia sections and articles are indiscriminate; this has a topic, namely, a notable myth in the media. It can be merged, but that doesn't need deletion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • A notable myth in the media? I'm not following you. Leprechauns are a notable myth, but this isn't about the myth in the media, or even about writings about Leprechauns, it's just Leprechaun trivia. Mangojuice^talk 01:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Popular culture "literally: "the culture of the people") consists of widespread cultural elements in any given society.........It can include any number of practices, including those pertaining to .........mass media and the many facets of entertainment such as sports and literature." CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I honestly still don't understand your argument here. Every trivia section or article has a topic, it's just full of unimportant information, as is this one. Mangojuice^talk 03:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Trivia sections have no one topic. They're just random collections of things someone finds interesting. I've seen them include, all at once, movie casting info, hidden jokes and comparisons of the growl of a villain in one movie with a villain in another (that was my all-time favourite- blatant OR). That's why they say trivia sections can be partially integrated into the main text- you may get enough info for a whole casting section, or a video game section, or a cultural impact section (or in this case, daughter article)- but again, I'd shed no tears if it were simply redirected, whatever editors see fit. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand, source, etc. Viable topic for this format. And to reply to something Mangojuice states above, per WP:OSTRICH it could be argued that every single article on Wikipedia is going to be unimportant to somebody. 23skidoo 06:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think WP:OSTRICH applies at all here. Obviously, we've all heard of Leprechauns, and we all know they appear in popular culture. If you want this expanded, what do you see the article, in a good state, looking like? And are you volunteering to do the work? Mangojuice^talk 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or Delete and No merge the information does not belong in the main article. And this article is useful to keep it that way. On the other hand the information probably shouldn't be in Wikipedia, we aren't a repository of useless information afterall. - Francis Tyers · 16:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • So rare to see keep and delete all at once and for it to be a valid opinion. ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a meaningless list of trivia, not an actual article about Leprechauns in popular culture. Don't let the name fool you. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete this article sucks. Aaronbrick 18:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a valid reasoning to delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:58, 18 February 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.