Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat 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 no consensus for deletion. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheshire Cat in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection, consisting of brief and irrelevant references, without any kind of citation or analysis to be seen. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT. Eyrian 16:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FIVE as trivia. Useight 18:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back into Cheshire Cat... which, after all, was a player in a scene in Lewis Carroll's book. Keep for reasons listed by Slashme Mandsford 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? He just said better here than there. --Eyrian 13:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he said "don't merge" back into "there", and I agree with his reasoning; his lightning rod theory makes sense.  Mandsford 18:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In spite of the consensus against that idea? If you're concerned, I'll be glad to watch the main article and keep it clean. --Eyrian 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What consensus? You, me, Slashme and Carlos are the only guys in this one.  Mandsford 00:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Eyrian is referring to a general consensus against trivia/pop culture articles. I don't know about that, as I haven't been following that discussion.  I agree that the article as it stands is just a list of pop culture trivia, but I think it could be improved.  I wouldn't mourn its loss, though. --Slashme 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or keep, Strong not merge This was split off the Cheshire Cat page for a reason. I agree that it is trivia, and I feel strongly that stuff like this should not be in the main article.  If you keep the "pop culture" article, it can act as a lightning-rod to keep that stuff away, and if you delete it, you have to fight a running battle against the "Dragonball-Z episode 99323" cult of trivialists.  But merging back into the main article would be really sad. --Slashme 08:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do not Merge this crap into Cheshire Cat - the weight of trivia will eventually destroy the article - as it threatens to so many others. Bigdaddy1981 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no "general consensus against trivia/pop culture articles". Thank, you, Mandsford. Bearian 17:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:AndyJones. Mathmo Talk 23:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhere so it can be improved. Nobody has shown why it cannot be improved, why the material cannot be sourced. DGG (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2007 (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.