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 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 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture[edit]

September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article needs to go. I don't see this as a good article for an encyclopedia. It is extremely lengthy, and some of the items are, to put it mildly, mundane. The attacks will be in the media for many years. What are we going to do? Add every single one of them? Where does it stop? imagine what the page will look like in 2015??? It is ridiculous. This article is an example of indiscriminate information getting an article. Fighting for Justice 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge then delete Merge to List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks, then delete seperate article. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 06:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused There is a debate over there too. In any case, merge then delete per ALLSTAR. All unreferenced material should go. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 15:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion from the other location follows.

Keep but trim, the 9/11 attacks are permanently ingrained into the American Psyche. There should be a list of notable ones here. Fosnez 11:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The answer to indiscriminate addition of information is NOT indiscriminate deletion. The page needs to be pared down some, but the page should be kept. --Roehl Sybing 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know there's a bias against "...in popular culture" articles and a movement to remove all of them, but in this case 9/11 had such a polarizing impact on American and world popular culture that it is completely justified. Content issues can be handled at the article level. 23skidoo 12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete- this has nothing to do with pop culture, it is just an arbitrary list which could include an inexhaustible # of random things.JJJ999 04:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Apparently some articles about films and songs inspired by 9/11 wound up in this article. This is valuable encyclopedic information. It's better to have too much popular culture than not enough of it. Shalom ^Hello 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete like all the in pop culture lists that are just a random, mainly unsourced, collection of trivia. Lugnuts 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Citation Citation Citation ... need I say more? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, virtually unsourced, violates WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 20:51, 24 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 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reluctantly, because a good article could be written, but this one appears to be a trellis on which to put the ever-expanding list of references to 9/11. There will be, for many years to come, new references to September 11, 2001. This one suffers from IPCitis. Unfortunately, this article wants to be everything... films about 9/11, depictions of the WTC, revisions of films in response to 9/11, mentions of 9/11 in other films. Sorry, 9/11 deserves better than an IPC album. Mandsford 00:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Total trivia, yes, a lot of things were affected/influenced by the events, and the attacks have their own article, as well. Every major event has been referenced/influenced in "popular culture" and there is no need for a laundry list page like this. Dannycali 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and deal with problems by editing. the claim above that all such sections violate WP policy is not supported by consensus. The claim theat material here needs citations can be dalt with by citing it. since the subject of references to 9/11 in popular culture is important, then the article is justified in WP. DGG (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add references. The article involves the cultural effect of a major influence and can be improved. Too important to delete and does not violate any policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic itself is notable and verifiable, with whole books devoted to it, eg [1] and [2]. I think that the article is best fixed by trimming and sourcing the existing version rather than deleting it and starting from scratch. Bláthnaid 19:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those books are not about the subject in question. They are mainly about how things have changed since the events. This article is about various mentions of the events in TV/Music, keep that in mind. Dannycali 18:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My view of the article is that it should be about how 9/11 changed popular culture as well as mentions of the events. That would provide the context needed to turn the article from a list of mentions to an encyclopaedic article, IMO. Bláthnaid 21:37, 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.