Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Lynn 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   no consensus. ( X! ·  talk )  · @495  · 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

King's Lynn in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While King's Lynn is notable per WP:NOTE, the subject of this article, King's Lynn in popular culture, isn't. It has been tagged to have anything significant moved to other articles for more than a year. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also original research, see WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this tiny handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge any notable material into King's Lynn. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or, better, merge any material to parent article. Some references will be notable, but not as a coherent subject. Sourcing will help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate these articles (x in popular culture, y in popular culture) but they do serve the purpose of stopping decent articles being choked with popkult cruft. I'm neutral on this but would rather not see a merge into the "parent" article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into the appropriate places in the main article. Not enough content for a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This nomination raises a host of principal problems, the scope of Wikipedia, who can edit and contribute with what, WP:NOTPAPER etc, the usual slew, and likely the usual people commenting the ususal way.  This article was spun-out from the King's Lynn paretn article 23 October 2008.  No reason was offered, but likely it could be an attempt to purge contested, debated, and what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" in popular culture.... content into a separate article - aiming for an uncontroversial compromise.  Perhaps somebody then will hit the delete button later, which turns out to be now.  This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back.  Personally, I dont like most of this "in popular culture" stuff, but as Jimbo has said, what shall we tell all those people who write about Pokemon etc, go write about nuclear physics instead? The procedure of spinning out the stuff is even endorsed in some guideline, if it prevents the article from achieving GA or FA status - and I think it is a good compromise that everybody should be able to live with. The scope of Wikipedia is so much broader than the elitist Encl. Brittanica etc, see NOTPAPER.  So I would say keep, and ask the nominee not to nominate more of those articles for AfD and instead to start a centralized discussion (good luck!) where this issue belongs.   Power.corrupts (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the nominator. Your smokescreen doesn't make the topic of this article, "King's Lynn in popular culture", notable, in fact, I could find not one source addressing it. WP:NOTE repeats over and over that the topic of an article must be notable. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a criteria for inclusion. Drawn Some (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - parallel discussion takes place at Articles for deletion/Crash test dummies in popular culture. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. &mdash; Yes, exactly. The correct course of action is not to take the lazy route with bad content, of sweeping it under the rug, in the first place.  Please read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, and see from the examples what actually, in practice, stops this cycle from recurring, and has stopped it with many articles in the past.  It requires work, a lot more than a copy and a paste, but unlike the lazy route it is provenly effective.  Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG. Useful information, but there is no where near enough to constitute a whole article. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to King's Lynn. Encyclopaedic but in the wrong place. References to popular culture almost always go into to main article unless the list is so long it wouldn't fit as a section in another particle, and I see not reason for an exception here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Many articles used to have a popular culture section that was a bucketthat collected a lot of trivial trash. Such sections were generally deleted a couple of years ago and WP has been better without them.  This article should follow.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form. The subject lacks notability and the content consists of nothing but trivial details.  Them  From  Space  23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet another fork by Mintrick, with content that xe didn't like erased from one article, and copied and pasted, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article. The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this.  The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete. Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick.  There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years.  You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content.  Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that those supporting a keep or merge have not offered any reliable sources where someone has written about the subject. Instead, as usual, people are trying to make the subject notabile by mere acclamation. WillOakland (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. To merge the information would require that it be cited to reliable sources, which, with one minor exception, it is not. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 10 July 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.