Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Eggs and Ham 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 Would you keep Green Eggs and Ham? I would not keep it, Sam-I-Am. Krimpet (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Green Eggs and Ham in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another very trivial list of mentions/spoofs. An example from the article: In Daddy Day Care, Charlie (Eddie Murphy) is reading this book to the children during a session of child-minding. It's a popular book, but a list of spoofs, mentions and references certainly isn't encyclopedic. Also: there is no need to merge this into the main article, as this is a cluttered crufty trivia list in my opinion. RobJ1981 00:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yes, this is a very trivial list for the most part. A couple of the more important ones (such as the opera) could be merged into the main article, however. By the way, I took the liberty of categorizing this discussion for you. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Actions • Words))) 00:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong retain. Grrr!  It's really hard to maintain a decent article on a topic like Green Eggs and Ham unless a repository is provided for the endlessly-contributed pop culture items.  I speak from experience.  Green Eggs and Ham in popular culture isn't hurting anybody, is conceivably of interest to some, and serves an important function, so please leave it alone.  Opus33 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct response to people trying to insert unsourced trivia into an article is to delete it, not send it to another page for unsourced trivia. Delete.  --Haemo 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the usual cycle of these lists goes as follows:
 * People add various notable popular culture references to an article
 * Other users, mostly anons, add tons of useless, obscure references to the list in the article
 * The list is split out to a new article.
 * It gets even worse.
 * The list is deleted.
 * GOTO 1.
 * Its sort of unfortunate, and the best course of action to avoid it is to trim the list to something short, simple, and only containing the most notable references, rather than passing mentions in the Simpsons. — Da rk •S hik ari [T] 01:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually inserted this into Raul's Rules of Wikipedia awhile ago. --Haemo 07:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with article Green Eggs and Ham, delete non-notable bits. Notable, yes, but not enough to get it's own article. Elfin341 02:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but have a sentence for the most significant examples in the main article. Masaruemoto 03:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I do not want this list to stay. I hope the mods take it away. It's far too useless, far too fluffed -- what Wikipedia dubs as cruft. The trivial mentions just aren't fit for 'cyclopaedias, not one bit. Even worse, it's quite unsourced! (Sorry if my verse is forced -- I did it just for fun, you know. Can't think of more, so I must go.) Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Actions • Words))) 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete everything except the "sponsored items" and put those in the main article - adaptations of the work to other media, in this case a film and a computer game, are notable and should be in the main article. The rest of the "I Spy with my little eye" items constitute a directory of loosely-associated items and should be deleted. Otto4711 13:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Modifying my opinion to say include all of the actual adaptations, including the opera mentioned above. Otto4711 13:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or possibly merge as per Elfin341. Most trivial things should be removed, sources should be sought for some things. But Green Eggs and Ham is actually very important in popular culture (as article demonstrates) and deserves to have this importance reflected on Wikipedia. BobFromBrockley 14:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One, nothing "deserves" an article on WIkipedia. Wikipedia articles are not rights or entitlements. Two, the article on the actual book attests to its notability. Deleting this article has no effect whatsoever on the notability of the book itself. While the book is clearly notable, that does not mean that every mention or appearance of the book in every other place ever is also notable. Otto4711 14:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to a subpage of the article's talk page and keep. If it is felt that this largely self-verifying data is too unorganized to appear on the main page of Green Eggs and Ham, one of the established functions of subpages of talk pages is to hold material for further editing.  As observed above, some of this stuff, like the official spin-offs, definitely belongs in the article in chief.  What this wants is better organization and some minimal characterization of matters that are now just a list. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is about as crufty list as you can get - Trivia, even in volume, is almost by definition not notable in its own right. The only purpose might be to illustrate the there are populatr references, in which case, this fact can be incorporated into the article itself, and only where the fact is not the synthesis of the author (i.e. a reliable source has made that conclusion. - Tiswas (t) 15:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A proper repository for unencyclopedic trivia content that is clogging up an article is the backspace key, not a new article.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I would really love to see more of these "Pop culture" articles go away. They lend nothing to the article. If a major television program did an entire episode in the style of Green Eggs and Ham, that might be notable. A book on a table is not. Slavlin 04:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Glorified trivia section that thinks it can be an article. Biggspowd 21:07, 21 May 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.