Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawn of the Dead 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 to delete.  Maxim (talk)  13:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawn of the Dead in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - yet another directory of loosely associated items. List seeks to capture anything that references Dawn of the Dead or anything that is supposedly "inspired by" DOTD or any time a film poster from DOTD appears in the background with no regard for the triviality of the reference. The list tells us nothing about DOTD, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about their relationship to each other (since there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 03:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide, and is not a directory of loosely associated terms. RobJ1981 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Disappointed that this line of attempted deletions continues, and that some still do not realise that artists influence each other. To use the straight-forward example provided by the nom., when a director makes a film and puts a poster for another film in the scene he is making an explicit reference connecting the two. Not particularly subtle, but neither are in my opinion the films. Certainly clear enough evidence for the significance of the relationship. Editors who understand relationships contribute content to WP. But even editors who do not understand should avoid seeking to perpetuate the lack of understanding  by keeping serious significance out when others contribute it. doesntmakesensetome, soitcantbeimportant.  DGG (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Just because director A likes director B's movie that doesn't mean that director A has been "influenced" by director B. Filmmakers put trivial little props in their movies as shout outs to their buddies all the time. That doesn't mean that every time something from one movie shows up in another movie that the first movie has had any "cultural impact" on the other at all. And, frankly, your attempt to portray people who disagree with you as ignorant is insulting and borders on a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 07:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Extended thread about participants in this and other AFDs moved to the talk page.--Chaser - T 05:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There is original research for some of these items and others are as trivial as one line mention in a song's lyrics.  Merge anything significant to Dawn of the Dead Corpx 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge —  It is a list internal links with violations of WP:NOT, but if it was cut down to the most important influences it could be made into a small section of the Dawn of the Dead article. Yamaka122 ... :)   13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. After having read the article and found in wanting in sources, I nevertheless feel that the article does cover a notable film that has recently been remade and that is part of a major horror series.  The article demonstrates the film's significant impact on popular culture.  The list format perhaps could be converted into text and references are needed, but we should approach this article with User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy in mind and thereby give the article a chance.  Moreover, the film's place in and relationship to popular culture has attracted serious scholarly study, as seen here.  And articles can be found discussing the film's similarities and differences with Dead Rising.  Also, please note that I submitted my post here to two admins for approval before posting on this discussion as part of my participation in the adopt-a-user program.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a directory of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT by design. Jay32183 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Just a directory of loosely associated topics"? After all the talk of sockpuppetry above? The mind boggles. Desdinova 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Making any claim about this article other than "it is a directory of loosely associated topics and should be deleted" is factually incorrect. Any complaint about sock puppetry is meaningless whining by people who can't have their way because they don't bother tho read and understand policy. Jay32183 02:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Loosely associated with each other or loosely associated with Dawn of The Dead? The former is a misreading of WP:NOT. Artw 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, the latter is. A directory of loosely associated topics is one which contains stuff that isn't related to each other. If this were being used as analysis from secondary sources, you might have a point. No such sources have been provided. Jay32183 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That;s a completely seperate issue form your misreadfing of WP:NOT, which these days is becoming a useless subset of WP:IDONTLIKEIT through misuse. Artw 23:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not misreading policy, you are misunderstanding the English language. A directory of loosely associated topics is a collection of things not related to each other. By definition, I'm right, you're wrong, and the article must be deleted. Jay32183 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be open to debate. My reading is that your interpretation is an extremist one and far from the mandate for policy-based deletion you seem to think it is. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an open issue. By definition, this is a directory of loosely associated topics. There isn't another interpretation. Any one who says otherwise does not grasp English well enough to participate in this discussion. Jay32183 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly you should reread WP:CIVIL as well. Artw 03:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you aren't going to follow WP:NOT you shouldn't be telling people to follow other policies. You don't have a point. There isn't anything you can say that would result in this article not being a perfect candidate for deletion. You need to accept that you are wrong, because there is a zero percent chance that you are right. Jay32183 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Anything of significance that fits should be merged to Zombies in popular culture or Dawn of the dead, though those both seem adequately served right now. Artw 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia needs to reach a consensus on these types of articles - rather than just doing individual debates like this one. Desdinova 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Possibly, but I've seen enough blanket decisions and the discussions that result in them to advise caution... --Kizor 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as it (1) is clearly notable; (2) has reliable sources (but needs more), and (3) is not indiscriminate (it has ordered sections). Some lists are cruft and some are not, per WP:LIST. Bearian 01:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the concern that the article fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See link above. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The film is notable, and its effect on popular culture is extensive enough to deserve an article. If given a free hand I would tighten up and shorten the article. More references are needed. The cited paper by Stephen Harper (under External Links) seems good and there could be others out there. EdJohnston 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This doesn't address the concern that the article fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See link above. Artw 03:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly notable per coverage like this article. Any article can be called a "collection of loosely associated items" -- take the Bush article for example, which mentions his background as a cheerleader, or the Bertrand Russell article, which mentions his lonely childhood experience. Some of the items in this article are more closely connected than others; the overall I don't think the relevance is particularly loose, and the references which are can be removed. — xDanielx T/C 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No Vote - Just wanted to point out WP:ITANNOYSME - It may be a list now, but we had a featured article that started as an "in popular culture" list. That is not a reason for deletion.  Whether or not the subject is notable and CAN be expanded is what should be debated. Denaar 15:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It can't be. No one has shown sources that it can. Jay32183 18:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been proved it can be to my satisfaction by comments above. Denaar 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Jay, what about this article? Americana is "an academic, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation . . . dedicated to the publication of exceptional American creative writing and American Studies scholarship," which publishes "three highly selective periodicals." "All of the work submitted to [their] periodicals goes through the rigorous process of peer and editorial review." And an 11 page article dedicated to the subject is substantial coverage, IMO. — xDanielx T/C 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with this article. This is a list of things that reference Dawn of the Dead. Critical analysis of Dawn of the Dead is fine. This isn't even a starting point. Use that article to expand the Dawn of the Dead article. That single ref doesn't justify a stand alone article. Since it hasn't been incorporated yet just let this get deleted and expand the main article, avoiding the inevitable merge if you were to just write it here. Jay32183 20:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest reading the whole article (as in the referenced article, not the WP article). — xDanielx T/C 08:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The ref is not a list of every mention of Dawn of the Dead, it is analysis of its role in popular culture. The Wikipedia article is a list of mentions, not an analysis of the role in popular culture. The ref does not support this article. Even if it supports an article with this title, all of the existing content would still have to be removed. However, since it is a single source, use it to expand the main article, because it won't justify a stand alone article. Jay32183 20:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So can't this source (and others, once some research is done) be used to turn the article into a discussion of the film's role in popular culture, rather than a list? If any editor is really interested in salvaging this article, they can start with that. :) --Midnightdreary 22:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd have to start from either way. A single source does not usually make a stand alone article when there is a logical place to merge. This list needs to go away. If you want to use those sources expand the main article, because the new article will just end up being merged. Jay32183 22:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It really isn't relevant that the WP article gives more specific examples than the reference which establishes notability. The subject is the same (actually the reference has a somewhat different focus, but it certain does give substantial coverage to the subject of this WP article), so it stands that the subject is notable per WP:N. — xDanielx T/C 00:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:N isn't the issue with this article, WP:NOT is. No matter what, everything that is here has to go. Right now the Dawn of the Dead article needs its section on pop culture expanded, even if a stand alone article is justified. This article is not that stand alone article. Start by expanding that section and use summary style if necessary. It's better to split too much than to merge too little. Jay32183 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can agree with that. I'll change my vote (struck out below) to Delete with the expectation that info from the great source (and hopefully others) in the popular culture article will be integrated into the main article (which, by the way, needs lots more sources throughout). My hope, of course, is that a dedicated editor for the Dawn of the Dead article will put some real effort into making it a substantial section avoiding cruft. If it becomes a really good section on its own, then it may be worth separating again. Any volunteers? --Midnightdreary 01:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If I understand correctly, it sounds like you're supporting a merge as opposed to deletion? — xDanielx T/C 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You got me. I meant merge meaningful content. My suggestion at this point might be close the AfD discussion (it's getting heated and not really moving forward), give a chance for the dedicated supporters of this article some time to improve it then renominate. Anyone else think this is the most civil route? --Midnightdreary 12:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT doesn't say that we can't have directories of information (if it did, we would have to delete all lists and categories) -- just that being a directory of information doesn't guarantee inclusion in and of itself. Whether articles of this nature constitute "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" has been debated ad nauseum, and while it is probably a reasonable argument, there is nothing objectively correct or incorrect about it based on the loose policies. — xDanielx T/C 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is undeniably a collection of loosely associated topics. There is no debate over the application of WP:NOT. There are, however, people who do not understand it and complain that they cannot make there lists of things that are only tangentially related to each other. Jay32183 06:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, except on the talk page, as noted above. Also your comments about "people who don't understand it" sounds a lot like the WP:CIVIL breach above that got you a talking too from admins. Artw 17:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a act of incivility. It is the truth. You quite specifically do not understand the policy and hide behind the "you're a jerk defense". Saying I'm uncivil does not change the fact that you are wrong and need to grasp a better understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no debate on the issue. Jay32183 18:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting very boring. You were uncivil and you got a slapdown for it. You're verging on incivility again. And I am not "wrong" because it is quite clearly debated on that talk page. Artw 19:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is why we may as well just close as no consensus. I hope that the editors interested in this article (such as yourself, Jay32183) at least consider the advice that has been suggested here and do their best to improve it. Even if the article isn't wholly agreed to be in need of deletion or merging, it should still stand that there is a legitimate reason to suggest those actions. There has been enough support for deletion to affirm that it's certainly questionable and that seems undeniable. I'll keep an eye on both the main article and the popular culture spin off and continue giving my advice, if that helps. Don't forget to assume good faith, by the way. --Midnightdreary 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While I object to the use of WP:NOT as a deletion hammer against Popular Culture articles I think theres still a good argument for the merging or deletion of this article - it's way to specific, and most of it's content is fluff. That's a judgement call rather than policy, and others may disagree. I donlt think theres any particular reason here to call for an early close. Arn't we about done anyway? Artw 19:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (vote changed) - Can be salvaged. I want to make the response, too, that Wikipedia is dedicated to verifiable truth so just because you know in your gut that Ozzy Osbourne is referencing the movie when he happens to put four or five words together doesn't mean it's verifiable. That may mean massive cut-down on this article. But, having seen there are a couple of sources out there that do talk about the impact of Dawn of the Dead on popular culture implies some notability to the topic. So, may suggestion is all the editors here that have passionately defended the in popular culture article do that work first: cut, snip, verify and source as much as possible. Then, convert as much as possible into a prose-based discussion of the impact (which, frankly, the best sources will provide information for, rather than list form). After all that heavy work is done, we can take a look at what's left and see if it's worth merging into the main article. But, who really knows how much is left over once all the cruft is gone? As a side note, that Ozzy line is a huge speculation, and a bad one at that. Boo. =) --Midnightdreary 18:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Is the movie notable, of course. Is an article based on a bunch of trivial mentions on said movie notable, no way.  People need to realize that on these article, we are not denying that the movie is notable, and just about every movie has effected pop culture in one way or another, but separate articles of trivia are not needed.  This could easily be widdled to a paragraph or less and put back into the main article. Dannycali 19:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP Obviously. Highly influential film, important part of pop culture.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:19, 5 September 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.