Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Popular Culture

{{Delrevafd|date=2008 July 8}}

: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 delete per WP:SNOW. Sorry, kids, there is not a snowball's chance in hell this is going to be kept, which means waiting five days to reach an inevitable conclusion will only waste a lot of time for a lot of people. I am a big fan of xkcd, myself, but I'm also cognizant of the fact Wikipedia is trying to be a serious encyclopedia, and attempts like this to turn this wiki's content into a playground are damaging to that goal. I'm sure that many of you mean well, and I wish you nothing but the best, but having this article at this time is not in Wikipedia's interests as an encyclopedia.

I may reconsider this decision and allow the AfD to proceed if reliable, third party-published sources discuss the phrase in a manner that is both encyclopedic and not isolated to Wikipedia. Such sources, if any, can be presented at my talk page. Otherwise, useful content is already present at Wikipedia in culture. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

=[[In Popular Culture]]=

:{{la|In Popular Culture}} ([{{fullurl:In Popular Culture|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In Popular Culture}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

I really don't know if this article should be kept or not, but I did want to make sure that there were as many eyes on it as possible to make a decision. It was created as a result of a webcomic making a joke about Wikipedia having an article with this name. I do find it interesting that has no one had thought this article was a good idea before the webcomic made a joke about its existence, but a lot of worthy subjects don't yet have articles so that's neither here nor there. At any rate, if the article is deleted, I'd like to recommend the name be salted as a lot of people came to create this article as soon as the webcomic was published. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, XKCD is the only secondary source (I'll retract my vote of others are presented). BJTalk 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; no notability outside Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Feezo (Talk) 06:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic Keep, Why should wikipedia have any credibility at all? The only notability that this article would have would be its own existence.(Lenerd (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC))
  • Delete, Self-reference is a dangerous tool Dr. Hofstadter, I don't want the Blogosphere to implode. Jesset77 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Oh come on, it's off an xkcd comic, it has to continue existing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermoskitten (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, and make the article not so wikipedia-centric, and possibly even remove the controversal xkcd reference. I think it is a valid entry, notable outside Wikipedia EdwardHades (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, since the article serves a valid encyclopedic entry, no matter what reason is behind the creation. Jo9100 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no substantial coverage in secondary sources (xkcd doesn't count). We should avoid blatant self-references such as this without good reason to do otherwise. Hut 8.5 06:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. No different from the Colbert-inspired joke pages, and doesn't add useful information. Tlesher (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism with zero notability outside (and no particular notability within) the Wikipedia editing community. Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable secondary sources. Cosmo0 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though this article really brought to light exactly what goes on in the underpinnings of wikipedia, namely all the pompous, elitist classholes with a Dwight Shrute-like power fantasy given too much free reign over a simple website. 69.81.191.6 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though the article comes from a webcomic doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. As EdwardHades said, the article just needs a little bit of work, which I'm sure somebody will do eventually. However, the article should be made less wikipedia centric. In other words, if the article could be about 'In Popular Culture' sections in general and not just on wikipedia, then keep it. Louis C. (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral (Don't judge too quickly). I would simply like to point out that this is not in any way the kind of self-reference which Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid tells us to avoid. The article is about a phenomenon on Wikipedia, but it does not self-reference itself as a Wikipedia article. In other words, the article could read exactly the same in some mirror or other encyclopedia and it would make just as much sense. Now, notability, that's another issue. One could argue that the article has no notability outside Wikipedia and/or that one could not find sufficient sources. On the other hand, many people use Wikipedia and one may be looking through articles and wonder what the "In Popular Culture" section is for, and this article might be a good place to explain it. In that case, we might allow Wikipedia itself to be the source. I remain neutral, but options i might propose instead of deleting it include moving it to Wikipedia project space or merging it into the Popular culture article. ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs to stay
  • Keep. Is already referenced several places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.140.50 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unreferenceable, unencyclopaedic, non-notable. Because we are all internet users, there is a systemic bias granting things on the internet with more importance than they actually have. Just because a webcomic makes a small reference to this, it doesn't mean an entire encyclopaedia article should be created as a result. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a valid reference a legitimate phenomena. It just needs to be expanded.--71.3.208.147 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep COMPLETELY apart from the xkcd references, one has to admit that the phrase "In Popular Culture" has gained widespred notoriety on wikipedia, message boards, and various other internet meme carriers. Far more than phrases like "lol," which can easily be listed on a page, "In Popular Culture" is a phrase which an uninitiated wikipedia browser may wish to know more about. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that we have the page references itself I think it should stand as a turning point in history. We have known for years that wikipedia is more that an encyclopedia. It has been creating events since its inception and now that it has created apart of itself it would be best to not anger it and just hope that the article on the 3 laws is well written. (Lenerd (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2008 (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.