Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weather control 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. Mangojuice^talk 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weather control in popular culture

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

Unsourced, trivial and cluttered list. Just because something is featured in pop culture, doesn't mean it should be a list here. RobJ1981 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - completely unsourced and trivial. --Boricuæddie 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Boricuæddie 04:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is a list of loosely associated items Corpx 05:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - The empty ref section at the bottom says it all. This is yet another of the IPC articles which doesn't deserve to stay. Spawn Man 05:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete a combination of trivial mentions and obscurities - a dumping ground rather than a coherent list. MarkBul 05:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Move to talk. Few entries in this list are "unsourced"; for most of them it is perfectly obvious what the sources are. Weather control is in fact a widely used theme in various works of science fiction, fantasy, and folklore. The article would be incomplete if a way is not found to integrate some of this material. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, if you can find sources, then add them. If you can't, then it fails WP:V, and, according to the deletion policy, the article should be deleted, no matter how "important" you claim it is. --Boricuæddie 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have been adding various cultural allusions to the article in chief on weather control. Many of mine come from classical mythology, but contemporary mythology should not be devalued either. Usually a reference to the work of fiction in which weather is being controlled ought to be sufficient. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, well-organized list that does have sources now (see reference section at bottom of article that I just added; I am still looking for more). I agree with Smerdis; these sorts of discussions really need to take place on talk pages first and I strongly urge nominators to look for references before nomiating as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that the burden of evidence lies with the user who created the article and/or those who collaborated. Failure to meet WP:V is an excellent rationale for deletion. --Boricuæddie 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, but that's why we have reference request tags, too. Anyway, though, it does have a reference section now. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as written. Trivial mentions aren't suitable for an encyclopedia. Merge major mentions to Weather Control if they aren't already there. shoy 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There really needs to be a Wikia for this kind of list. There's certainly demand. Ichormosquito 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to agree. Why not a Wiki Popular Culture so everybody will be free to put up this kind of trivia-dump?--JForget 23:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - directory of loosely-associated items. No relationship exists between the items on this laundry list. Otto4711 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Total junk trivia list, violates WP:NOT Dannycali 22:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per more trivia-cruft -= mostly unverified and OR.--JForget 23:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep some of the above remarks are not exactly rational arguments: calling something trivia-cruft does not make it so. Calling it loosely associated does not make it so either, when the association is the common main theme of the work, as is the case for at least some of these. The other arguments either ignore the obviously appropriate soceability or assume that popular culture is trivia--its the very opposite--its one of the reasons why things are significant and encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:FAN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:27, 11 September 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.