Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck and Cover 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   merge to Duck and Cover (film). Stock close #7: AfD is not the place for discussing merges. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Duck and Cover in popular culture

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

Per the PROD tag which was removed without explanation ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concern stated in the prod, that the topic should be covered in the parent article (presumably Duck and Cover), is not grounds for deletion. If you feel it should be covered there, merge the content to that page and turn this one into a redirect. JulesH (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Merging is not an issue for AfD. -Atmoz (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Parent - This info doesn't need to be its own page. Dachande (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - as above. Jenuk1985  |  Talk  21:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose merging; none of this content belongs at the other article. The subjects are wildly different. While the Duck and Cover (film) article discusses history, production, and important cultural connections, this is merely a haphazard list of largely unimportant references, that add nothing to an overall understanding of the film. It should not be merged. Mintrick (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge (trimmed) If this is merged, I would suggest trimming it down rather than listing every known reference or parody. Hellbus (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Duck and cover and Duck and Cover (film) as appropriate (some may reference the film, some may reference the practice/slogan). I don't know the current state intimately, but at various times, the article has had numerous one-off throw-away references.  The important thing is that it is a tightly related topic, and none of the three articles, when well-maintained are remotely large enough to require WP:SPINOUT. -Verdatum (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (with a trim) As Mintrick said, largely unimportant, therefore does not merit its own article, if references are unrelated then remove them.Beligaronia (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Duck and Cover (film); the material does not justify a standalone article. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not really clear what is the parent article, so the best thing to do is to keep this separate. The way isee it, almost always the references here are to the concept, as embodied in the film. DGG (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of the information here is cited to reliable sources about the subject of the article, and it therefore constitutes original synthesis. The proper place to cover this, to the extent that it has been written about, is in either of the main articles, and in prose form. WillOakland (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2009 (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.