Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal


 * 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. Utterly fails WP:ENC. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references to Grand Central Terminal

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. List seeks to capture every reference or appearance of a particular building, or buildings that aren't even identified as the building except through the original research of the editor who spotted it. This list of trivia tells us nothing about the building, nothing about the fiction that contains the trivia, nothing about their interrelationship (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 01:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fix the above-mentioned problems, or delete  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete almost all the mentions on the list are trivial, like where "Tobey Maguire's character rushes to board the last train of the evening back to Connecticut".   Merge the significant mentions back into the main article and delete this per list of loosely associated items / trivia Corpx 09:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . If we wanted to establish a list of every mention based on RSs, this might be a good start-- as it is, it lists a few significant ones from major works--Szilard, Hitchcock, Salinger George M Cohan. --all of these are certainly sourceable. And more recent major films: Armaggadon, and many others. If Corpx has objections to one or two, let him make suggestions on the article talk page. No, this article doesnt say everything there is to say about the buildings or the films--it does what a list article should do--collect major references together.  More work needs to be done on these articles, but probably every thing here could be expanded. And no, I am not about to write this entire section of WP, but neither am I suggesting we delete it. Its so easy to say delete and so hard to add content. That's no reason to concentrate on deletion. DGG (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But we don't want to establish a list of every single time GST is merely mentioned in every single book, magazine article, TV show, movie, play, etc. because such a list is a collection of trivia. It's not that this article doesn't say "everything" about the building or the fiction. It's that it says nothing about the building or the fiction. Otto4711 13:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, we only want to mention the significant ones. i think the significant ones are easily defined as the ones where the work mentioning them is notable enough for an article in WP. This is is similar to the practice in links in general. Remember that the individual items of content in an article just have to be relevant, not meet WP:N. DGG (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete You can tell from the title that this was written by a New York City snob. Yes, we know you New Yorkers don't call it "Grand Central Station", but the other 5,990,000,000 of us do.  Even the remark "What is this, G__ C___ S___?" is as outdated as saying that something is "the cat's meow".  Basically, this is the usual IPC article about mentions and sightings of the world famous "Grand Central Terminal".  If we were to substitute "JFK" for GCS, it would illustrate that a terminal, no matter how famous, is not much a part of our culture. Mandsford 14:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That;s just an argument for rename, and the question is what the references in general. good idea to have a similar article about JFK if we dont. the cultural references are all for this specific terminal/station.
 * Oh Geez, don't tell me I've inspired someone to write an idiotic article about all the mentions and sightings of the JFK Airport too.... Nobody outside of "The Big Apple" gives a shit about Grand Central Station. Mandsford 21:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Ah... the good old similar to the IPC articles and without sources.--JForget 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unsourced is not a reason for deletion. But yes, like other IPC articles which should be expanded, sourced, and kept. DGG (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have mean also per WP:TRIVIA and as listcruft. However, scrolling back the article and the first part doesn't look too bad, although sources and expansion would be needed as you stated. However, the latter part is similar to every IPC or other similar types of articles which means containing a long list/collection of OR trivia. I'm changing the vote to Merge with the main article because there is some content that can be salvageable and that can be moved there providing sources are included. Then remove/delete the trivia trash per WP:NOT and that is impossible to be sourced to meet WP:V.--JForget 18:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge, because well-organized article, does not violate any policies, contains a nice text introduction, images, etc., i.e. more than just a list; with that said, definitely please do add some references. Perhaps a good start would even be something asking about how cultural references to Grand Central Terminal has changed: Is Grand Central Station still a focal point?.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very trivial list of mentions that isn't useful. These dumping ground articles need to go. There has been more than enough time to clean them up, and no one has done it. RobJ1981 00:21, 6 September 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.