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. Although the Keep !voters put forward a strong argument that the article was better-sourced than most articles at this time, there was the problem that all the sources are primary sources (referring directly to songs, poetry etc.) and therefore constitute original research. I considered a merge and redirect, but there is already a lengthy section at Kent_State_shootings#Artistic_tributes. (Note: This closure does not prejudice re-creation, provided that reliable secondary published sources are cited.) Walton^One 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kent State shootings in popular culture[edit]

A cluttered trivial list of mentions isn't notable. This is yet another "let's move the information to make the main article smaller". Condense! Don't just move the content if you don't have to. RobJ1981 23:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and tag main article section to be condensed. Mystache 00:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:trivia, most notable influences should be mentioned in main article--Victor falk 00:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was prepared to hate this article, expecting little more than "Four Dead in Ohio" and a bunch of movie quotes. However, this actually is well sourced. This event doesn't provoke the emotion now that it did 37 years ago, but it inspired a lot of ballads in the 70s. Mandsford 00:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont' know what's going on, but the whole page is back in the main article. Where it belongs, in my opinion. MarkBul 00:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me... Mandsford 01:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge referenced material. Subject has had an influence on popular culture and it is definitely encyclopedic to note that influence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the worst IPC article, but as this is already in Kent State shootings there is no use in having a separate article, and this doesn't have to be kept as it was always in the main article's edit history, so GDFL isn't a problem here. Crazysuit 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already merged where it should be. Renee 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kent State shootings or Delete.--LAZY 1L 04:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As is said above even by those wishing delete, not a particularly bad article of its sort. This sort of topic is notable: the cultural ramifications of major political events generally are.And it's sourced. and notability is permanent.DGG (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivia dump. The KSS is one subject where I can imagine there might be published articles about its presentation in pop culture, but the article doesn't cite any. Gazpacho 07:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added one. This is also discussed in most of the several dozen books about the events. DGG (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford , DGG, et al. Sourced, not overly POV. Needs more in-line cites. Bearian 16:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic by itself is not notable for an article, most of the references in the list are minor and the major things can be widdled and put on the main page. Again, we are not debating whether the shootings are notable, that's a given and it's has it's own article. But a spinoff of trivial mentions, no. This violates WP:NOT in several areas, total trivia. Dannycali 20:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep a well done example of this kind of page. Artw 05:13, 27 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.