Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanuki in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as listcruft and trivia. Daniel Case 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanuki in popular culture

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

Just a list of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 23:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that significant changes have been made to the article. Please note the changes and reassess your opinion here. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is still a list of loosely associated topics. Removing less notable ones does not change that. Jay32183 16:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - again, as the article says, "The following is a list of appearances made by tanuki (Japanese raccoon dogs) in various works of popular fiction.". In other words, any appearance of a raccoon dog in any medium, no matter how trivial, with no context or discussions. Indiscriminate list of trivia. --Haemo 00:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into タヌキ. I never knew what a Tanuki was, and it's apparently a big part of Japanese folklore and popular culture, virtually unknown here. Perhaps in another 20 years, those lovable Japanese raccoon dogs with the big testicles will become part of pop culture in the English-speaking world. Mandsford 00:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Merging doesn't address my concern at all. It will only burden Tanuki with inappropriate content. Jay32183 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Categorize those elements that are most notable into a category such as 'Japanese folklore in popular culture' or somesuch, and then delete the article. CaveatLectorTalk 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There is something a little scary about racoons with oversize scrotums. ~ Infrangible 01:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete pure trivia - WP:FIVE Corpx 02:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but encourage editors to add references. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Lack of references aren't the problem. Jay32183 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Another indiscriminate collection of loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 03:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Resolute 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete None of these sets of rough notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, culturecruft. Realkyhick 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, far too trivial, indiscriminate, useless, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as I have restricted the listings to notable appearances, updated the list by removing non-notable listings, and updated the description at the top of the list. The new list is not trivial, and not indiscriminate. The new requirements are much more restrictive. Please reassess your votes based on these new changes. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The addition of "notable" to the intro makes it subjective, and therefore it borders on OR; who is to say what appearance is notable? The list is still indiscriminate and still unsourced. María (críticame) 17:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as a directory of loosely associated topics. Otto4711 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article content doesn't provide anything other than a bunch of appearances. There is no critical anlysis of its role in popular culture and thus is just a trivia list. -- Whpq 21:07, 26 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.