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 per consensus. PeaceNT 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue of Liberty in popular culture[edit]

The Statue of Liberty in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance of the SoL in any medium regardless of the importance or lack of same of the appearance either within the medium or in the real world. Otto4711 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. borderline bad faith nomination; no reason to be on AfD. Notorious4life 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Excuse me, but you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to accuse me of making a bad faith nomination, "borderline" or otherwise. Otto4711 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Notorious4life probably meant was that you've basically listed almost every article from a category in a seemingly hasty attempt to get the category itself deleted, and targeting such a prestigious article as this during your mass purge seemed petty. Personally, I think you were just impatient and weren't actually reading all the articles you nominated for AfD, and likely listed this by mistake. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This WP:USEFUL argument is brought up with all pop culture article deletions, ignoring the merits of the article itself. You shouldn't be in favour of keeping an article full of "excess junk trivia". Pomte 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But I am in favour of keeping it. Subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY, are helpful for keeping excess trivia and detail out of the main article. --Aude (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But also note WP:AVTRIV. If a trivia section is too massive for a main article it serves Wikipedia no better as a separate article. Otto4711 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one that is helping maintain the main article (one article out of my massive watchlist), I'd rather keep the subarticle rather than go back to having people keep adding trivia to the main article. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles (We need to stay at #3 and avoid #5). Not ideal, but doing it this way makes maintaining the article more manageable. --Aude (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention, in nominating these sorts of garbage dump articles, to make life more dificult for people who monitor articles which attract this kind of pop culture crap. However, unless the culture of Wikipedia changes so that both indiscriminate "in pop culture" sections in articles and "in pop culture" articles are both consdered unacceptable, this sort of crap will be perpetuated. If you don;t want this crap in its own article or in the main article, then take a stand in this and similar AFDs to send the message that it is not wanted anywhere on WP. Otto4711 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Otto4711 is misunderstanding policies quite a bit. Articles need to be of a managable size and reasonably focused. Separating out aspects dealing with pop culture and fiction from the main article keeps everything nicer. Each article should be considered on it's own merits, and according to Wikipedia policy, not Otto4711's personal dislikes and beliefs. Furthermore, I strongly object to Otto4711's frequent use of strong words like "crap" to characterize what Otto4711 wants to delete. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, the problem with that is, if this information is garbage in the main SoL article, it's garbage on its own in a standalone article. Otto4711 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you think that scope makes it indiscriminate? Look at the example for National Treasure: "Brief view in an intro shot of New York City." This implies that the Statue plays as insignificant a part as it can in the movie, merely because it happens to be in the city it is set. The article is not well-referenced. Look how many ((fact))'s there are. Pomte 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—Celithemis 01:14, 24 February 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.
More