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. — TKD::Talk 10:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beagle in popular culture[edit]

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of every time someone spots a beagle on TV or in a book or movie tells us nothing about beagles, nothing about the fiction in which the beagle appears and nothing about the world around us. The things have nothing in common past the presence to a greater or lesser degree of a particular kind of dog. Otto4711 18:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Otto hit the nail on the head. --Eyrian 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Delete per above. J-stan ^Talk 19:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that the primary contributors to this and the FA-class Beagle article perform a merge of the appropriate content into a prose section and then redirect or delete the article. This can work really well, as evidence by the history of the also FA Guinea pig article and Cultural references to guinea pigs. The latter listcruft was transformed quite easily into a good paragraph of prose. VanTucky ^(talk) 19:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the end of that paragraph good? It's just a list with periods instead of boxes, without analytical depth, referenced only to the primary sources. I don't see how it's any different from the list we're discussing now. --Eyrian 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good because it takes a meaningless list, and creates a prose section that evidences why and how that animal has a presence in popular culture. "Analytical depth" about a small rodent (or a small dog) appearing in adverts and children's literature isn't necessary, but a mention of a subject's place in pop culture and fiction is. You'll also notice that we didn't just slap every mention from the original article in to the new version, but picked out the ones that were connected to other important facts about the animal, and then grouped them meaningfully according to age, type of media, and breadth of influence. VanTucky ^(talk) 20:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in a rush to remove it. --Eyrian 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you asked... :) VanTucky ^(talk) 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A number of the entries on this list aren't even Beagles, so it will be no great loss. I split this off the main Beagle article when I was preparing it for FA, leaving behind only some relevant examples. The "In popular culture" sections of articles can be hotbeds for conflict, so it is often better to split them off, but this one hasn't been touched (except for somebody correcting a link) since I split it off. On a related note, since nobody was interested in it, there was no need for an AFD: a prod would have worked just fine. Yomangani ^talk 22:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge more notable examples into Beagle. Still, as Yomangni correctly points out, not all of these are beagles. Dogs with floppy ears are cute and easy to draw, and I think that the author is assuming a lot. Snoopy was a beagle... Lucy said so. But Odie? ~~Underdog?~~ Mr. Peabody? Mr. Peabody??? See, I woulda sworn that Augie Doggy and Daddy Doggy were beagles, but in reality, beagles cannot walk upright no talk in complete sentences for any appreciable length of time. Mandsford 00:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The more notable examples are already in Beagle (that's why I split this off initially). Yomangani ^talk 00:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 3 August 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.