Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IKEA 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. Jaranda wat's sup 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

IKEA in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - a thoroughly indiscriminate list seeking to capture every instance of not only when someone happens to mention IKEA in a movie, TV show or magazine without any regard to the actual importance of the mention within the context of the program, but every mention of anything that sounds like IKEA or resembles IKEA or in some other way reminds whatever random editor who spots it of IKEA, again with no information explaining why the inclusion of this IKEA-like thing has any significance either in the fictional world from which it's drawn or in the real world. Otto4711 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim & Merge to IKEA article. THE KING 16:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This actually touches on a problem inherent in these articles. The information generally starts out in the parent article then gets offloaded to a separate "...in popular culture" article. Then if the pop-cult article gets AfDed the outcome is often merge. Which uts the information back into the main article until it bloats enough so that someone separates it again, and around and around. Otto4711 16:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was getting too big for IKEA, and that's why I splitted it. bogdan 13:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unreferenced Let me start by saying that WP:NOT#IINFO does not cover trivia and "in pop-culture" articles; that section of policy is very specific on what it covers. However, that being said, this article appears to be virtually unreferenced.  Unless references are provided for verifiability and notability purposes, the article should be deleted (note that unreferenced material should not be remerged with the main article but should simply be deleted and only recreated when references are added.)Dugwiki 20:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your conclusion, I must still disagree with your assertion that WP:NOT#IINFO can't be cited. Consensus may not have been reached on the issue but that does not mean that the items for which consensus has been reached are exhaustive. There is some discussion on the WP:NOT talk page which I encourage any interested parties to view. However, even absent WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT forbids "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." I would assert that a collection of one-liners from a couple of dozen sources would qualify for deletion under WP:NOT#DIR as well. Otto4711 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm more willing to buy an argument using WP:NOT#DIR for a list of loosely associated trivial facts. Just as a general aside, though, there has been a tendency to misuse the WP:NOT#IINFO section as a sort of catch-all "I don't like it" reference in these afd debates.  Some editors seem to refer to it whenever an article deals with something they feel is "trivial" or "unimportant", for example.  Anyway, as both Otto and I mentioned, there's a broader discussion about this on the WP:NOT talk page, so I won't go into it here other than to advise that unless an article actually falls under one of the specific consensus sections of WP:NOT#IINFO you probably should not refer to it as it somewhat invalidates that portion of your argument. Find a more appropriate section of policy that directly talks about what you are dealing with (such as maybe using WP:NOT#DIR for lists of "random" facts). Dugwiki 00:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Petition accepted with No merge. - Francis Tyers · 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not merge. Do not allow a new version in IKEA. Kill for good.  This sort of list is easy to write, but thoroughly unencyclopedic. It is a set of rough notes at best that lacks the objectivity of a proper article. Cloachland 03:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with the comments expressed by Otto4711 that if the resolution of the AfD is either a delete or a trim/merge, it will likely cause significant other information be regurgitated into the main article and then being split out again in a viscous cycle. There is no foreseeable way to stop this, so I instead would strongly suggest that the content is reviewed and is made more encyclopaedic where possible, and un-encyclopaedic content is removed. thewinchester 12:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I've also just gone through the article in question and done a massive formatting clean-up. Relevant fact tags have been added and references correctly formatted. Hopefully this can encourage someone else to come along and see if we can't get it up to standard. thewinchester 13:05, 18 February 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.