Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Tech 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 keep, no consensus to delete. There is a slight majority of users arguing to delete; however, the arguments on both sides are of reasonable strength and the dispute over encyclopedic merit should therefore be addressed through the editing process. -- Visviva 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgia Tech in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unacceptable trivia, per WP:FIVE (or WP:NOT if you prefer). Eyrian 18:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I created this article long, long ago to get rid of the popular culture section of Georgia Institute of Technology, and made some attempt at sourcing a couple of them and adding a lead image. For a description of the issues surrounding "in popular culture" pages, see "In popular culture" articles. The main point that page makes is that "If properly sourced and consistent with policies and guidelines, popular culture articles can attain quality and be a quality part of a topic." I think that it's possible to do so with this page, and while I haven't done so yet, nothing keeps this page from becoming every bit as beautiful as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. I've been focusing on History of Georgia Tech and before that, I created a Featured List, List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. I'd also like to point out that WP:NOT and WP:POPCULTURE are not policy, but a guideline and an essay. I can't think of a solid reason for or against deletion based on firmly established policies such as WP:N or WP:V, but a reasonably solid case can be made to keep the article per the WP:POPCULTURE essay and my project's promise to improve the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT is policy. WP:FIVE transcends policy. --Eyrian 19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. I might have been thinking of the "Arguments to Avoid in AfD discussions" page, which I'd been looking at recently. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:FIVE applies here; if some effort is taken to source an "In Popular Culture" list, then it's not unverified, and if it's formatted properly, it's not trivia. I could understand using WP:TRIVIA as a deletion rationale, as long as we're sure that the list is trivia. WP:FIVE lists so many unrelated policies that it's hard to understand what problems a nominator has with the article when there are specific policy pages for each issue represented here. Just a suggestion. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of Georgia Tech deletions. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A list is a list, whether the entries are separated by boxes or periods. What is missing is overall cited analysis to provide meaningful structure. That structure cannot exist without analysis. --Eyrian 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL!! Your comment is sooo funny in the context here, you do realise that WP:FIVE is a list! You are using a list to delete a list..... thanks for the chuckles! :D  Mathmo Talk 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy, guideline, or essay that gives more detail on "overall cited analysis"? If I were to attempt to add some of that before this discussion is closed, what would I focus on for this article? As far as I can tell, that means to give a better definition of and context for the list's subject in the list's lead. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:V; articles need to be built on independent citations. If there aren't any, there shouldn't be an article. --Eyrian 20:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So if I went through and found references that each of (or most of) these examples of Georgia Tech in popular culture wasn't OR, you'd withdraw your nomination? Or does there need to be a cited work that discusses the article's specific subject? For example, something published about references to Georgia Tech in popular culture? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You would need an independent reference containing significant coverage. In order for the subject of this article to be notable, that's what is required. The mentions of Georgia Tech can, of course, be present on the pages for each of the works mentioned. If you can find such references, then I would cheerfully withdraw the nomination. --Eyrian 20:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". I try and use some variation of the "trivia collection" theme, so that people know where to look. It really isn't that long, but I think I'll specify when possible. --Eyrian 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that it's better for you to cite WP:TRIVIA instead of WP:FIVE, since both are accepted policy. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's a notable difference between Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc and articles like this. A great part of the former is devoted to literary works about Joan and visual works that explicitly depict her. The pop culture stuff forms only a section of that article and is confined to more or less significant references. A collection of factoids like "In Deliverance (1972), one of the cars driven by the main characters has a front license plate that reads 'Georgia Tech'" isn't really in the same league. I can see only one or two entries in this article that could by any stretch be said to be about Georgia Tech. Deor 20:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any notable, relevant info in a prose format into the main article and redirect. If this is not accomplished, delete. VanTucky  (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Disavian. Niayre 21:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:TRIVIA, OR, non-notable. A Georgia Tech notebook is displayed on the shelf in a backroom where Ray Winstone and Leonardo Dicaprio go to beat up some guys in The Departed (2006). ?  Please.  And the fact that the Georgia Tech marching band played the marching band of a different school is not "Georgia Tech in popular culture", it's sub-nonsensical trivia.  As is most of this crap.  Corvus cornix 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although the articles for schools like Harvard (the first school in the country) and UC Berkeley (one of the most well known and well respected institutions in the country) are plagued by pop cultural references (something that needs to be addressed in those articles), the editors opining here for a keep apparently believe that the cultural references to Georgia Tech (...) need their own article. I think this is where these sections and articles start to choke on themselves, as we have progressed from fanboys getting excited about the appearance of a mythological figure in their favorite television show to over-enthusiastic alumni throwing whatever reference to their school they can find, without regard to any sort of notability.  CaveatLectorTalk 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - trivia this insignificant is nothing but fancruft at best and pure junk at worst. I have never thought of Wikipedia as a repository factoids that only the most committed of alumni would begin to even care about. There is a wide differnce in "can attain quality" being quality. This is beyond the hope of being a quality article. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep - I think that all of the main articles mentioned in this article either reference Tech in the appropriate places or simply keep this article. It's really not that bad when some of these references are fairly famous (e.g. Rudy sacking GT's Rudy Allen in Rudy or the Marilyn Monroe image).  To cite the insignificant trivia as the reason to delete this article severely underrates some of the more interesting and notable trivia.--Excaliburhorn 01:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then surely you will have no problem with sourcing it. Corvus cornix02:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not deleted soon, I will. It's not too hard to find most of these refs. --Excaliburhorn 03:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a collection of loosely associated non-notable topics. Saikokira 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost all non-notable topics, even if this is my alma mater. The Marilyn Monroe picture deserves a good home, though.    Acroterion  (talk)  03:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - some trivial points in the movie listings, but this should not be deleted. It needs sourcing though, but I think this topic deserves to be retained. Irishjp 11:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; some of this might be merged into another article, such as the Tech locations seen on film. Mostly, this is not of interest even to a Tech grad.  I recognize that there is an entire family of Tech articles, but this truly is all trivia, from start to finish.  Well intentioned, but probably the most blatant violation of WP:TRIVIA I've encountered.  Mandsford 00:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and surely most universities could come up with a similar article perhaps even of better quality, but still unencyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep possibly most large universities could, and they should write them. No one has yet said why they would be unsuitable for an encyclopedia--the image of a university is an important and encyclopedic topic. DGG (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Has once again said it perfectly. Mathmo Talk 23:27, 7 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.