Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honoré de Balzac 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. Cúchullain t/ c 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Honoré de Balzac in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An indiscriminate collection of the most fleeting references to the playwright as possible. (Tee-hee, didja notice that "Balzac" sounds like "ball sack?") Krimpet (talk/review) 04:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - totally unreferenced, non-notable trivia. The last couple of sections are particularly aggregious - by no stretch of the imagination can a pun based on his name be considered a notable pop culture reference.  --Haemo 07:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Oppose any suggestion to merge any of this to Balzac's article. Otto4711 13:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per the above, article doesn't make any attempt to address the history of Balzac in popular culture, the impact of Balzac in pop culture, and so on. Just a laundry list.  A r k y a n  &#149; (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. At least the double entendres were funny, but it fails WP:IINFO. Realkyhick 03:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete certainly indiscriminate. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought the stupid jokes were funny though. Croxley 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if you do not want this information to reappear again in the main article (which would happen on 100%). I had created it for this exact purpose since nobody cared to maintain it and pop-culture references and fights over them constituted major part of recent edits. The proper solution for such articles is someone knowledgeable in anglophone popular culture taking care here.


 * If deleted preserve the part about Rodin's statue which is definitely notable. Pavel Vozenilek 18:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Pavel Vozenilek's argument. Textbook case of a "pragmatic keep" (about which I may have to write a WP page) Ventifax 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pragmatic keep" is just another way of saying bettr here than there and it's a terrible argument for keeping an article. If the information is garbage on its own then it would be garbage in the main article. All keeping this article does is shift the responsibility for the garbage from one set of editors to another. Otto4711 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If it's totally unreferenced which it 'isn't' at all if you bother noticing some footnotes, who cares? Anyone can simply add a reference there if they find it. This article is a treasure trove of information, information you probably won't be able to find in single area online. And oh, btw, someone didn't put the format for the footnotes which is why you can't see the references at the bottom. I'll add it now. ResurgamII 14:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a "treasure trove of information", unfortunately that information is completely indiscriminate, of which Wikipedia is not a collection of. Krimpet (talk/review)
 * Keep it is apparently partly sourced, and as I noted in the Kim Jong-il nomination, nearly every article including the Hitler and Lincoln ones in the Category:Representations of people in popular culture lack sources, but I would assume that sources could be found which is a big distinction in WP policies apparently: see WP:ATT discussing the difference. If we went ahead and deleted any partially sourced articles for that reason (just take a look at the ones some editors have flagged as unsourced Category:All articles lacking sources would WP be better or worse for these all being deleted?), CSD A4 and the GDFL terms would like prevent any recreation. On a more practical level, I agree with Pavel Vozenilek's view that this stuff will just migrate to the main articles. Carlossuarez46 19:05, 4 April 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.