Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balor in popular culture


 * 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--Tone 14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Balor in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Pop culture cruft, clutter and simply useless trivia. Important content should be in the main Balor article, not as a subpage. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I spun this article off from the main Balor article. I don't think anything in the popular culture article belongs in the main one. Mintrick (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge Useful info but in no way requiring its own article. Also makes less sense without info on what a Balor actually is.
 * As straightforward allusions that rarely go beyond a name, there is very little context required. Mintrick (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree- if these references are notable, then they should be in the article, but they do not warrent a notable article.Mrathel (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * keep and do some sourcing, in particualr, to see if reviews of the works mention the person or object. DGG (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This kind of "I spy" list of things Wikipedia editors have come across is fundamentally original research. If you want to write about this subject, find reliable sources on this subject and work from what they say. WillOakland (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the above comment. OR, and not notable until proven otherwise, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, all these occurrences may exist, but that doesn't make them relevant. And as far as merging is concerned, you'd need such a fundamental rewrite (really, "write," because this is a list) to turn this into a paragraph or section that it's really starting from scratch (the "scratch" being the sources that say that these occurrences are relevant, notable, etc.). Drmies (talk) 22:14, 12 December 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.