Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 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. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of appearances of C96 in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - indiscriminate, largely unreferenced collection of appearances of not only a particular weapon but of things that someone decided look kind of like that particular weapon. Rife with verifiability problems and original research. Otto4711 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I recommend to start a discussion or suggest a guideline about articles in Category:In popular culture instead of going after them one by one. I fully agree with your opinion about the quality but these articles have been created for a purpose and usually result in the main article being better. I view them as a typical Second Best solution. Pavel Vozenilek 13:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that removing this material from the main article on a topic is appropriate. That does not, however, mean that it may then be housed in a separate article, if the material is in violation of the non-negotiable policies WP:OR and WP:V. Otto4711 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd created dozen or two "... in popular culture" leaf pages by offloading the main text and my personal experience is that this works: the people who add this kind of references (and nothing else, typically) do use these leafs and stay away from the main article. I do remember lenghty discussions on Village Pump on what to do with this kind of "information", resulting in no action or decision. The idea to create leaf pages grew gradually popular for lack of alternatives. IMO this problem is impossible to fix until stable version will be implemented (freeing up some time to work here). One such page, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, has been elevated among features articles as a result of heroic effort of an editor, so there's some hope. Pavel Vozenilek 12:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the difference between the JoA article and this one. First off, the subject matter is wildly different. One documents cultural representations of a saint and national hero. The other documents the appearance of guns that kind of look like the C96. The JoA article is completely referenced and sourced. The C96 article is completely unreferenced and unsourced. The intro to the JoA article provides real-world context for its subject matter. The intro to the C96 article provides no real-world context and isn't even spelled correctly. I have nothing against the "...in popular culture" concept, but I expect that such articles be held to the same standards as every other article and this one clearly falls so short of basic standards that it should be deleted. Otto4711 14:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, editor appears to be making a point aganst "..in popular culture" articles? Mathmo Talk 10:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, editor is seeking to remove an unreferenced, unverifiable, indiscriminate list from Wikipedia because it violates Wikipedia policies adainst original research and the requirement of reliable sources. Otto4711 12:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Almost all content here extremely trivial.  This article was created as a fork of Mauser C96, to get rid of this ugly cruft from an otherwise good article.  I worry a little that deleting this article would lead people to start adding this stuff to that article again, but in this case, the balance should be on the side of deleting the fork article, it's very unencyclopedic.  This issue has come up before.  I will write a little essay at "In popular culture" articles to get started.  Mango juice talk 18:44, 12 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.