Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizen Kane 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. Peacent 03:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Kane in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article, like other deleted popular culture articles before it, is an indiscriminate list of loosely-associated topics. None of these entries are made famous as a result of mentioning Citizen Kane in passing -- it's just trivia, basically. Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: What's really needed is a worthy spin-off article exploring Citizen Kane as a popular film, not just a bunch of references. Alientraveller 13:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics and WIkipedia articles should not contain original research. This is a collection of any time something reminded some editor of CK, whether the thing was actually inspired by CK or not, and of course sourcing is atrocious to non-existent. Even pruned to actual confirmed CK references the list still fails WP:NOT. The resulting pruned list would tell us nothing about CK, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn or how they relate to each other and nothing about the real world. Further, the inevitable suggestion to merge any of this back to the main film article should be shouted down. The information is of no more use in that article than in this separate article. Otto4711 13:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not attempt the subject mentioned in the title but rather just a list of instances in violation of WP:NOT.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because first sentence of article demonstrates notability by asserting: "Citizen Kane is one of the most referenced films in popular culture." And, this is a culturally/historically significant film, after all.  Again, though, I would recommend adding some kind of tag that requests sources.  --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, does not attempt the subject mentioned in the title but rather just a list of instances in violation of WP:NOT.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, because first sentence of article demonstrates notability by asserting: "Citizen Kane is one of the most referenced films in popular culture." And, this is a culturally/historically significant film, after all.  Again, though, I would recommend adding some kind of tag that requests sources.  --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Like Arkyan said above, the topic does not meet notability standards. The sentence is completely unsubstantiated in its claim, and listing all the passing mentions of Citizen Kane in various media to support this claim is pure synthesis.  Certainly, it's a culturally/historically significant film, and should be covered as such on its article, but that's no reason to make a trivial list of entries that mention it in passing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with extreme prejudice. The Simpsons is not up there with the Colossus of Rhodes or the Pyramids culturally: just because something shows up there doesn't mean the appearance is notable. Unless someone else is discussing Citizen Kane and how it has become part of our culture (and PLEASE, "culture" does not mean passing references on cartoon shows!), this article should not exist. If someone is discussing it, then the article should report on what is being discussed. -- Charlene 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FIVE WP is not a trivia collection Corpx 21:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft, OR, trivia, Nuff said!--JForget 22:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Like a lot of "in popular culture" articles, this is one where a fan's effort actually detracts from a classic film by listing every reference to "Rosebud", every movie that seems to have a Kane-like influence, 10 Simpsons episodes, etc. There's a good reason why lists like this aren't part of an article about the film.  Author is required to listen to Roger Ebert's commentary on the Kane DVD in order to regain perspective.  Mandsford 01:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge, Either keep it or Merge it with Citizen Kane, I actually liked the list and think it is notable how one film has made such a cultural influence, that it is mentioned in TV and other movies. Callelinea 03:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "I like it," unfortunately is not a valid reason to keep the article. Additionally, the article fails to meet Wikipedia's specific notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per everyone. Bulldog123 00:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and very much so. Violates WP:NOT as an list of indiscriminate trivia.  María ( críticame ) 20:25, 11 July 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.