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. Sr13 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Laundry list of loosely associated topics which have little to do with the mandrake plant in popular culture and more to do with listing any mention of the word "mandrake" in popular culture, or any fictional character named "Mandrake". Crazysuit 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Place under bed in pool of water and feed with... er... delete - indiscriminate list of trivia all loosely connected to the Mandrake, its genus, or things that sound like it. --Haemo 01:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Haemo Bucketsofg 02:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom et al. ↑. --Evb-wiki 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rip up by the roots and delete, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 03:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Darn it, you folks stole all the good jokes! AFD is a lot of fun these days, with all the articles on "popular culture". I insist that not all of them should be deleted, but the mandrake plant is halfway to never-never-land. Shalom ^Hello 03:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weed this, and weed every freaking "popular culture" article possible. They are not fun, they are lists of irrelevant and completely inconsequential trivia. Somebody mentions farting on some barely notable television program and an article on Farting in popular culture is born. --Charlene 03:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Loosely connected? Please! In all the references that I am familiar with, its uses in those media are consistent with those cited in the main article. It thus extends that article’s encyclopedic value by providing contextual examples of its alchemical uses in the past (whether crackpottery or not is beside the point), and its influence on literature and other media, especially in works of fiction. Some of the comments here sound more like people have an agenda to push rather than maintain this site properly in an unbiased, impartial manner.
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.117.184 (talk • contribs) Corvus cornix 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources? No sources, no article. Corvus cornix 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, knowing that Dr. Strangelove has a character called Group Captain Mandrake really helped me understand the plant's alchemical uses. Crazysuit 05:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced list of vague popular culture references, and cover hears so we don't hear the screaming. Confusing Manifestation 06:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to document every time a book/tv show/movie references a plant Corpx 07:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• and here's me thinking if only there was a listing of references to mandrake plants in popular culture. Man! delete Kripto 10:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Research notes, not an article. Replace with (very short) paragraph of flowing prose in the main article. Greg Grahame 12:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to a subpage of the talk page. Some of this information, such as the Harry Potter appearance, probably belongs in the article in chief. It's up to the editors of that article to discuss which ones should stay. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP and MOVE How is this different from the literature references in tha article itself. While some of the information is just irrelevant, things like Harry Potter reference and Pan's Labyrinth (despite the jokes by first posters) should be kept. It's up to the editors of the article to decide what to keep. (RossF18 19:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:11, 8 July 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.