Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. Rje 12:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references
This is an arbitrary list of trivia, in the form "List of times object has been mentioned in fiction." In this case, it's merely a mention of every time D&D has been mentioned in fiction, generally with little context. It illustrates no trend and doesn't serve as a navigational aid. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, I see no particular problems with it. J I P  | Talk 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any problems with this or any other list entry.Wyatt Riot 08:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The POINT of the list is the effect D&D has had on popular culture.  You haven't set up the Society and Star Trek or Notable lines in the Star Wars series, or other articles of the sort. Leave it alone, it's not like it's a stub list. Coyote42 09:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gimme a break, a guy can only do so much at a time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, and encourage A Man In Bl♟ck to follow up Coyote42's excellent suggestions for future AfD's.  Pointless fanlistcruft that fails to establish notability. Vizjim 10:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I hate to argue with someone who agrees with me, but notability isn't really at issue here. D&D is eminently notable; I'm simply arguing that this article has no subject but is instead a list of facts with a common attribute. Since there's no subject, there's no way to decide if the subject is notable or not. (If someone could demonstrate to me that there's a trend illustrated here or some other similar subject, then I'd probably withdraw the nom.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough: do we at least agree that in its current form this is "pointless fanlistcruft"? (I'll alter it to "notable pointless fanlistcruft" if you prefer.)  Vizjim 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You realize I was being sarcastic, right, Viz?Coyote42 18:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Personally, I'm of the opinion that the less is mentioned on popular culture about D&D, the better. It makes life vastly easier for those of us who play it, without having to "defend" it at every turn. --Agamemnon2 10:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. It also lacks sources. No doubt other lists on the Wiki have similar issues and should all eventually find their way here. Incidentally, I have nothing against D&D even though a pompous DM or two cooled my desire play, way back when. PJM 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently, this was taken out of the main Dungeons & Dragons article as it was becoming too long. Seems reasonable enough.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I despise D&D... a lot... but this article is a worthy addition to WP. It's also a very well-written article. -- Kicking222 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Heck, as to that, the article presumes that all these pop references mean D&D.  There are plenty of other RPGs out there those cinematic characters could be playing; that's like a Poker Pop Culture References article presuming that every card game played on the screen must be poker.  RGTraynor 15:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep articles forked from parent due to length; needs citations. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The parent article is only 45K long. The 32K limit is just a guideline. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as not meeting the verifiability policy. The number of entries for which published sources meeting WP:RS can be found is probably much smaller than this list and these entries can go into the article. There's no reason to have a completely unselective list of pop culture references to D&D; only the important ones need to be in the main article, and you'll never convince me that all of these entries are important. The verifiability policy is probably sufficient to trim them down in an objective way.Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if only to prevent this list from being rebuilt over time in the main article. I can see the value in having an article about D&D in pop culture, but information like this does not belong in the main article. BreathingMeat 20:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, per others. - CNichols 21:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per BreathingMeat &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and well-written. --Sir Ophiuchus 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pop Will Eat Itself, and this is evidence that it threw up afterwards. Enumeration is not information.  Information is not knowledge. -- GWO
 * Keep – per Starblind, it has sufficient material, if it was taken out of the main article to keep the size down, that's fine – Gurch 13:16, 18 May 2006 (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.