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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA in popular culture[edit]

IKEA in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - a thoroughly indiscriminate list seeking to capture every instance of not only when someone happens to mention IKEA in a movie, TV show or magazine without any regard to the actual importance of the mention within the context of the program, but every mention of anything that sounds like IKEA or resembles IKEA or in some other way reminds whatever random editor who spots it of IKEA, again with no information explaining why the inclusion of this IKEA-like thing has any significance either in the fictional world from which it's drawn or in the real world. Otto4711 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This actually touches on a problem inherent in these articles. The information generally starts out in the parent article then gets offloaded to a separate "...in popular culture" article. Then if the pop-cult article gets AfDed the outcome is often merge. Which uts the information back into the main article until it bloats enough so that someone separates it again, and around and around. Otto4711 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was getting too big for IKEA, and that's why I splitted it. bogdan 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with your conclusion, I must still disagree with your assertion that WP:NOT#IINFO can't be cited. Consensus may not have been reached on the issue but that does not mean that the items for which consensus has been reached are exhaustive. There is some discussion on the WP:NOT talk page which I encourage any interested parties to view. However, even absent WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR forbids "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." I would assert that a collection of one-liners from a couple of dozen sources would qualify for deletion under WP:NOT#DIR as well. Otto4711 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm more willing to buy an argument using WP:NOT#DIR for a list of loosely associated trivial facts. Just as a general aside, though, there has been a tendency to misuse the WP:NOT#IINFO section as a sort of catch-all "I don't like it" reference in these afd debates. Some editors seem to refer to it whenever an article deals with something they feel is "trivial" or "unimportant", for example. Anyway, as both Otto and I mentioned, there's a broader discussion about this on the WP:NOT talk page, so I won't go into it here other than to advise that unless an article actually falls under one of the specific consensus sections of WP:NOT#IINFO you probably should not refer to it as it somewhat invalidates that portion of your argument. Find a more appropriate section of policy that directly talks about what you are dealing with (such as maybe using WP:NOT#DIR for lists of "random" facts). Dugwiki 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've also just gone through the article in question and done a massive formatting clean-up. Relevant fact tags have been added and references correctly formatted. Hopefully this can encourage someone else to come along and see if we can't get it up to standard. thewinchester 13:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More