Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references (2nd nomination)


 * 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 12-sided delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

List of Dungeons & Dragons popular culture references
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unacceptable trivia collection, completely skirting the important controversies the game has sparked over the years. Eyrian 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as with all other 'X in pop culture' indiscriminate lists. CaveatLectorTalk 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Isn't this the 2nd AfD for this article? Am surprised it passed first time. Canuckle 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, Here is the first AFD. Otto4711 22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Missing Info - That links is just a redirect to the 2nd one. Where is the original discussion? Turlo Lomon 11:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above as trivia-filled article.--JForget 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as reasonable article showing the role of the subject in contemporary culture. Important in the world, further sourcing not impossible.  "Violate the pillars" is in fact a new argument, perhaps in reflection of the fact that these articles do not violate any specific policy in wikipedia. Many have been suggested in the various proposals, none of them actually talk about this. They do not violate the pillars any more than the policies, and I would like a specific argument about why the violate V as a pillar for example, when there is no provision in V as a policy for removing the article. DGG (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - while "violate the pillars" may be a new argument, Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics is an old favorite. The things captured on this list tell us nothing about D&D, nothing about the fiction from which the references are drawn, nothing about how any of it is related to each other and nothing about the world in general. I mean really, we get it, "Dungeons and Dragons" is often used by lazy scriptwriters as an easy way to establish a character's nerd cred. Find a magazine article that says so, put a line in a D&D article with a footnote and be done with it. A ginormous list of every time someone rolls a d20 on TV is worthless. Otto4711 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto. --Haemo 00:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Popular culture references" lists, even within articles, really never add anything to the topic. Just non-contextual trivia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja
 * Delete per WP:5 and the relationship between this and D&D is extremely "loose" (WPNOT) Corpx 02:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm an old player and DM; I used to write for TSR, as did many of my friends (my attorney gets a credit line in the Dungeon Masters Guide); I find the way that D&D players are mischaracterized interesting. But as has been said, there is nothing encyclopedic about this kind of article; it adds nothing to the sum of human learning.
 * Keep - This article, and other 'in popular culture' articles, serve to identify how a phenomenon is perceived or used, how pervasive it is over time, and how perception of it may change over time. Much as a proper dictionary uses citations to show how words are actually used, lists of popular culture references provide living context to a topic, whether D&D, a film, or a comic catch phrase. At most, merge this into the main article.Lizard sf 16:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- As far as In popular culture articles go, this is poor. Literally, just a mention of D&D is enough to get added to this list. Saikokira 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge -- Though the latter is the lesser of the two options, since the parent article is already quite large. I notice that this article has been worked on by a lot of different contributors over nearly two years. The nominator himself speaks of a cultural impact, describing controversies over the last several years that have not been included...is editing a better solution than deletion, if that's the problem?  For the most part, the cultural references to this nearly 35 year old game, played by millions over that stretch of time, are negative.  Given the cult like following of "D & D", and the rite of passage that is associated with giving the game up,   BTW, I don't get the 2nd nomination part.  Clerical error?  Just curious.  Mandsford 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, somewhat refed now, just needs more. - Peregrine Fisher 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: please see WP:PSTS, which states that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." Emphasis not mine. María ( críticame ) 16:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Indiscriminate laundry list of mostly trivial references. Someone was seen playing D&D in a TV show once... someone said they liked D&D in something else. So what? Crazysuit 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced (meaning reliable, third-party sources that attests to D&D's impact of PC, not just a source that verifies that the pop culture reference exists) list of trivial and encyclopedic indiscriminate information. No one is claiming that D&D is not a pop culture phenomenon and loved by dorks world-wide, but this article is just a laundry list (as Crazysuit puts it) of any time D&D is mentioned anywhere -- this does not a good article make.  I am also very much against merging it. María ( críticame ) 15:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because the topic's notability fails to be established by listing passing mentions of Dungeons & Dragons in various media. There is no encyclopedic real-world context offered here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:18, 31 July 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.