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. The 'notability' argument for deletion is partly (not entirely because sources about the topic – as opposed to indidividual entries only – are still lacking) addressed by pointing out that jet packs are a "common element" in various genres. However, the WP:NOT#DIRECTORY argument has not been addressed, and the consensus is that the article does not contain any content worth preserving. I think a comparison with Spiders in culture (mentioned below), which was recently nominated for deletion and snowball kept because of a commendable improvement drive, may be useful. "[Subject] in popular culture" or "Cultural depictions of [subject]" can be a valid, encyclopedic topic (for many subjects there is ample scholarly literature to draw from), but there is a big difference between an article that provides sourced commentary and one that is little other than a directory of appearances. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete - another example of an editor splitting off an enormous list of trivia into its own dump article instead of just deleting it. As is pretty much always the end reuslt of such WP:BHTT splits, the resulting "popular culture" article is a directory of unassociated items. These things have absolutely nothing to do with one another beyond happening to have some sort of jet pack in them. This tells us nothing about jet packs, nothing about the fiction the jet packs appear in, nothing abot their relationships to each other (for there is none) and nothing about the real world. The instinct to clean this out of the main article was good and this should under no circumstances be merged back to it. In future let us hope that instead of saddling Wikipedia with these sorts of laundry lists editors will simply delete them. Until then, we'll have to settle for deleting this article. Otto4711 04:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This doesn't merit it's own article. There's hardly anything worth keeping and the remainder caneasily be merged into the Jet pack article. Other than James Bond, the Jet Pack hasn't been a focal point of anything in popular culture. Spawn Man 05:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable enough topic to merit its own article. Gatoclass 05:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 05:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete get rid of the trivial - nothing is left. MarkBul 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable, and it is just a list of trivia.Darkcraft 13:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it contains nice introduction paragraph with the image before listing the items, but it does need references, too. For example, consider this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it contains a nice intro paragraph, it should be merged then, Delete as unprosed trivia. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is all trivial information Corpx 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the sample reference given shows that references can be found for the individual items. Referenceable is the standard at WP. Things having the same theme or major plot element are of course related to each other, although apparently not everyone sees that as logical. DGG (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, sorry, no matter how many times you say it, the mere presence of an item in two pieces of fiction does not establish a close association between the two pieces. "It has a jet pack in it" is not a theme. Otto4711 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete More culture cruft which violates WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA and many more.--JForget 02:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep does not violate WP:NOT, as the only advice that policy gives on trivia is to follow the WP:TRIVIA guideline, and citing that guideline as a reason to delete specifically contradicts WP:TRIVIA#What this guideline is not. There is no reason why this article cannot be cleaned up and made similar to Spiders in culture, which was just kept per WP:SNOW. DHowell 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep is a notable pop culture phenomenon. Jet packs are a very common element in comic books, cartoons, classic TV and film. The list that's currently up would help in writing an actual article, and in that regard it would be a shame to lose it.
  Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
  19:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Feel free to request that it be userfied to your page before deletion. Otto4711 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I really hate sarcasm. I'm going to start wp:those who use sarcasm in arguments shall hereby be horsewhipped. To answer your snide remark though, my userspace won't accomplish nearly as much as a public article. Articles are constant works in progress that are meant to be improved by the community. Articles are not individual pet projects.
  Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)
  22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Are jet packs notable, sure. But this isn't the issue. The page is just a "I saw a jet pack" in this movie crap mention list. Dannycali 22:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unnecessary and excessive list of trivia. Enough valid, sourced points are covered under the "in popular culture" heading at the main article jet pack. Walton^One 19:05, 10 September 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.