Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash test dummies in popular culture

:{{la|Crash test dummies in popular culture}} ([{{fullurl:Crash test dummies in popular culture|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash test dummies in popular culture}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

While crash test dummies are notable per WP:NOTE, crash test dummies in popular culture is not a notable topic for a stand-alone article. Furthermore, this article is a combination of original research, admitted rumor, and trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In addition, article has no references and has been tagged as needing them for over two years. These sorts of articles are harmful to the encyclopedia and it has been mirrored numerous times. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, This information probably could be referenced if someone wanted to take the time. That said, just because the info is verifiable it is not necessarily notable. This is just a list of places that crash dummies have been used. If these individual uses are notable than they should be worked into the appropriate articles not collected on a single page. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Crash test dummy Racepacket (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::Unreferenced trivia isn't appropriate for merger. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep I think it is a notable topic for a stand-alone article, and that it shouldn't be merged; the Vince and Larry public service announcements made them as well known as Smokey the Bear had been for an earlier generation. Unfortunately-named with the cursed "in popular culture" tag, three words which are synonymous with "please nominate this". Unless there's some sourcing, however, the nominator is correct that it's had a chance to improve. This is an article that has ignored warnings to put on the safety belt of verifiable sources, and it is now skidding toward the concrete wall of deletion. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficient notable uses of the concept in notable media to make an article. That a theme is used in media is significant--this is one of the fields of media study, not just the individual uses. There is no deadline for improvement; failure to improve is not reason for deletion--impossibility of improvement is. DGG (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

::It's not enough just to say all that, DGG, you have to demonstrate that what you are saying is true. Otherwise people could just say whatever they can think of to "save" worthless articles from deletion. I know no one would actually DO that, but we must avoid that appearance. ;-P Drawn Some (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Umm, no. Actually to render an opinion one does not have to prove thier opinion is true. It may help but per assume good faith we extend that folsk are not simply fabricating and falsifying. I'm not even sure what the point would be in doing so. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Give it a few days, and see if it improves.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Crash test dummy. This isn't a pop culture article, it's Crash test dummy miscellanea, ranging from independently notable bits of pop culture (the PSAs, the licensed works) to incredibly inane trivia (one time Far Side mentioned them). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• response: Give it a few days, and see if it improves.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment We really should have a general overview of the Vince and Larry "media empire", as there is a good bit to say about it that wouldn't fit well in Crash test dummy. Perhaps we could merge this article with The Incredible Crash Dummies, which is supposed to be about the toy line specifically, but also covers the animated specials, the video game, and the comic books. Here are a few sources that cover Vince, Larry, and friends: [http://books.google.com/books?id=7h4T1DWEECUC&pg=PA222&dq=%22vince+and+larry%22+crash+dummies&client=firefox-a], [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/80169423.html?dids=80169423:80169423&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Nov+28%2C+1992&author=GERALD+RENNER%3B+Courant+Religion+Writer&pub=Hartford+Courant&desc=Toy+critic+slams+crash+dummies+Vince+and+Larry%27+on+annual+list+Crash+dummies+wreck+government%27s+safety+message%2C+priest+says&pqatl=google], [http://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/23/business/the-media-business-advertising-addenda-tyco-loses-deal-on-crash-dummies.html], [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/automobiles/dummies-the-next-generation.html], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This article seems to have been spun-out from the Crash test dummies parent article 15 Februaary 2007. There is a principal issue of what to do with what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" in popular culture.... content. In this case the content is of such a good nature, that it could either stay in a separate article or be merged back - but overall we achieve little (if anything at all) by first spinning out content, and then merging it back. I made a similar comment to the nominee at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Lynn in popular culture. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::Then see my response there. Per WP:NOTE the topic of an article must be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I did, and no, I don't like these articles, I simply don't read them, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and I have no immediate urge to deny other Wikipedians the possibility of working in this area . Please explain why "These sorts of articles are harmful to the encyclopedia" - I mean, preciesly what sort of harm are you thinking of - to me this sounds like WP:DONTLIKEIT. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

::::http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/01/13/tomo/index.html Drawn Some (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I don't like the link, and I see no answer to my question of what is harmful. However, I would add that the crash test dummies Vince and Larry found way into the national news in Denmark, in the 1990s if I remember correctly, I'm sure plenty of refs for this article can be found. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While not all "in pop culture" articles should be kept (I'd favor merging or deleting many, as discussed in various AfDs), I'd keep this one and many others. It is not harmful; in fact, possibly useful to high school and college students doing reseach. As Power.corrupts pointed out, see WP:NOTPAPER. This stub needs a rescue job, see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge: If this article could be condensed and places in the Crash Test Dummies article it would be ok. Otherwise delete.--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Prune and Merge to Crash Test Dummies -- Popular culture sections and articles are buckets for collecting trivia and should be deleted. However much of this article is not about popular culture, so much as about a US road safety campaign. That material (re-titled appropriately) should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - these are usually a damned mess but I can see clear evidence of notability here. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per WP:AfD. This is hardly an indiscriminate list, is sourceable just currently needing sources and all of these remain clean-up issues. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Popular culture is something the wikipedia does keep track of. Dream Focus 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Crash test dummy Ohms law (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Crash test dummy, that article needs the good parts of this article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.