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 keep, as many (but not all) of the references provided in the references section and the the external links section are sufficient to establish the notability of this subject per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, the existence of many acceptable references related to this subject specifically implies that it would be possible to write an article on this subject without recourse to original research. Article content problems, such as asserted presence of original research and/or non-notable material, as well as insufficient content utilizing the sources provided, are to be resolved editorially, not through the deletion of the entire article. John254 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penguins in popular culture[edit]

Very trivial dumping ground for any mention or appearance of penguins in popular culture. RobJ1981 23:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into main penguin article. Penguins are pretty iconic, not like manatees, and I'd be surprised if there weren't anything written on their use. Agree it needs cleanup cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. "very trivial" means no more than trivial--just personal opinion. There's too much material to merge. Better sourcing and possibly some more selectivity is needed, as frequently the case with WP articles on this sort of topic--and many other topics as well. DGG (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article works fine in list well-organized list format and indicates the astonishing influence penguns have had on popular culture. Additional references are fine, of course, but no real need to delete. Also, even major newspapers have covered this specific topic: Penguins are pop culture's hottest thing from The Seattle Times, Penguins Waddle Into the Culture Wars from ABC News, Penguins pack pop-culture punch from Pittsburgh Tribune, and Why are penguins such good box office? from the BBC. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, the issue is not whether penguins are "iconic", of course they are, but there is a main article about the penguin, this is just a trivia dumping ground that has no place here. Dannycali 02:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usual, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps trimming would help, but this is a highly notable cultural subject. Chubbles 05:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Like it or not, penguins are considered "cute" by hundreds of millions of people, because of their upright stance, their waddling walk, and their tuxedo like appearance. Let's not merge this with the article about real penguins, however. Mandsford 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penguins are cute is not a good reason for an article. Otto4711 18:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like penguins anymore than I like you, but who are we to argue with everyone else? Mandsford 20:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, we're individuals with opinions? Are you saying that if there had been multiple delete !votes before you weighed in your opinion would've been different? Otto4711 20:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the usual collection of stuff with nothing in common. "It's got a penguin in it!" is not a theme. Penguins are undoubtedly notable. That doesn't mean that a list of every time a penguin appears in a movie or TV show or comic strip or video game is worthwhile or encyclopedic. Otto4711 18:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article is not just triva dumping ground Artw 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater indeed. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 04:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are a few animal related afds that ended in delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beagle in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walruses in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cattle in popular culture. And these are likely as or more notable than coyotes. Dannycali 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the opposite of otherjunkexists, is otherthingsweredeleted. Quite a lot of good articles have been deleted due to lack of attention to them, in popular culture and many unrelated topics. "Beagles" can be seen at User:AndyJones/Beagle in popular culture--it's a much less extensive article than this. If anyone wants the other two userified, let me know. "Walrus" is a little skimpy, but there are some references; "Cattle" is actually a rather good article, and someone might well want to trim it of the junkier part and try again. DGG (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- same as reasoning I give for all arbitrary, long, infillable lists like this, and for the article nominated below this. Clear violation of guidelines and spirit of wikipedia, and a waste of time.JJJ999 05:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting "deleting all the excellent articles." That sort of "oh noes, the sky will fall" argumentation is nonsense. Otto4711 13:36, 3 October 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.