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 merge if there is consensus on the relevant talk page that this content is appropriate for the Tang article. ÷seresin 06:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang in popular culture[edit]

Tang is notable per WP:NOTE but the subject of this article, Tang in popular culture, is not. This is an indiscriminate collection of original research that has been tagged as needing references for a year. See WP:NOT and WP:OR also. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this paltry handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's the possibility that this is a referenced topic, but this is emphatically not a start on that and such a topic could easily be covered in Tang (drink). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete popkult infinite regress. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with the other opinions put forth. The lack of references doesn't help the article's cause. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of this, though most isn't worth merging. DGG (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say is worth merging? I'm open to being convinced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some of these list that are notable. This isn't one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Tang with no prejudice towards re-creation at a later time. Some of the trivia needs to be excised, but there are some examples of the use of Tang as major plot points. It is a "hot mess" right now, but there appears to be enough notable examples that a better article could be created later. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no original research please.--Caspian blue 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not notable enough as a topic on its own. No doubt some have been mentioned somewhere in some commentary or other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Casliber and Bearian Ohms law (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke and Pave — mention in individual pop culture articles if appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Mintrick hasn't learned the lesson of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrinx in popular culture, because xe has done the same thing again: erased content that xe didn't like from an article, and copied and pasted it, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article.
The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this. The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete.
Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick. There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years. You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Tang (drink). I cleaned out some of the irrelevant trivia so it is now a bit more focused than it was but I still vote Merge.Joe407 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per Uncle G. While a prose paragraph depicting the cultural reception of Tang is appropriate in the main article, this information is devoid of sources and really isn't about Tang at all. Them From Space 01:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no factual evidence --Dragon Kick (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (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.