Talk:W. B. Yeats in popular culture

I am not too fond of these "in popular culture" lists myself, but they do no harm, and may serve as useful repositories of information that can be used in other articles. Wikipedia is not paper. If we delete this, we'll have to delete most of Category:In popular culture. dab (𒁳) 06:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, then let's delete them. They are for the most part garbage dumps of unencyclopedic information that exist only becuse instead of deleting them out of the main article some editor slagged it off. Otto4711 15:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, yes, you know that won't work. I don't see the harm, WP's not paper. Merge what you can, remove the worst bits and let the rest hang around unobtrusively. dab (𒁳) 15:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It works just fine if editors take responsibility for it and delete it instead of dumping it off. I see in the AFD that the person who created the article did so because the information was deemed unacceptable in the main article. If it's unacceptable in the main article, chances are it's unacceptable as a spin-off article. But as long as people spin garbage off instead of getting rid of it, we'll continue to have waste dump "...in popular culture" articles. The harm is that it gives people a green light to create ever more of these dump heaps. As for WP:NOT, it is not in any possible way an excuse for an article that fails other aspects of policy. Otto4711 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've found in the past that simply removing the section can lead to a protracted edit war. If the list is short, its best just to remove, but if it has grown and people have put obviuos effort into it, I normally just spin. Ceoil 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * dab makes an excellent point. These things really do make a difference in showcasing the enormous potential of Wikipedia to accomplish what paper encyclopedias don't or can't.  Sadly, removing this kind of information only ends up turning readers away from Wikipedia and alienates editors who spend many hours working on them.  The popular culture articles are among the more intriguing ones that make me want to continue visiting Wikipedia actually.  They do a great job showing the influence of various subjects.--  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone really think an article on how Yeats' has influenced subsequent writers and other artists doesn't belong in Wikipedia? —johndburger 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, that sounds like a good article. But this isn't it. This is a list of fictional media in which Yeats' name is mentioned or one of his works is quoted. There's no context or actual discussion. Propaniac 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't be an anarchy. Rules, guidelines and policies need to be in place, otherwise it would be full of cluttered nonsense that hardly anyone cares about. Articles should appeal to a general audience, not just a select few. RobJ1981 13:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hm, that's completely mistaken. Wikipedia is full of articles that appeal just to a select few. There's nothing wrong with that at all. What counts is notability respective to some particular field. The problem of these "pop culture" articles is that they are not aimed at a "select few", but consist of the flotsam of random additions which aren't pertinent to any particular field. dab (𒁳) 07:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)