Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references in The Sims 2


 * 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. --Core desat  00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references in The Sims 2

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft, original research and way too much trivia. Wikipedia shouldn't have these trivia/culture reference guides. RobJ1981 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I think that all these "pop culture reference" list pages should go. They are really trivial, hard to back up (How do you cite a videogame?) and generally not worth keeping. GhostPirate 16:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Moreso than not being able to cite the video game, how do you set the threshold for what is or is not a valid reference? I'm a contributor to Kingdom of Loathing's KOLwiki and I run into that problem all the time.  Many times references are either wrong, utterly obscure to he point of being dubious, or refer to a reference in another work that is actually a reference to some other original (the citing of The Simpsons' parody of The Shining as the source of the "Heeeeere's Johnny!" quote comes to mind, a reference to a parody of a reference to The Carson Show!).  In addition, I would venture if you look hard enough anything could be a reference to anything.  Notable homages between noteworthy and 'important' works are one thing (to bring it back to The Simpsons again, The fact in one of the Treehouse of Horror episodes they had Bart dressed as Alex from A Clockwork Orange is somewhat meaningful, given his character), but crufty minutae are another entirely; let alone entire pages of them.  If anything this sort of thing belongs on a pop-culture Wiki, not Wikipedia. Wintermut3 18:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - indiscriminate, original research, somewhat a game guide but not egregiously so. Otto4711 17:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ALTON   .ıl  00:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not only do these independent lists need to go, they need to go from inside articles as well. They really don't convey much, if anything, about the subject that couldn't be summed up with a short paragraph say that the subject does often make cultural references.--Crossmr 17:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As has been said elsewhere... calling it "indiscriminate" or "cruft" is a non-argument akin to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. The material is certainly verifiable and for a game series as important as Sims, notable. The scope of the list is narrow and objective. So why is it indiscriminate? Mathmo Talk 09:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that cruft is a word I don't like to use, but indiscriminate lists are actually mentioned by name in Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Furthermore, Wikipedia is Not a source for publishing original thought If someone wrote an excellent book on cultural references in the sims, or did a published thesis something like "Cultural references in The Sims: a meta-analysis of modern culture" then we could include it, but as it is this sort of this is unsourcable by it's very nature.  Unless you have a quote from Will Wright saying that a reference was intended, it could be mere coincidence, see my comments above for examples of how deciding what is and isn't a reference gets tricky. Wintermut3


 * Delete 99% of the contents of the article is impossible to source. Pax:Vobiscum 14:03, 11 March 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.