Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to The Shining


 * 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. I've added a few sentences to the main article; more content is available for merging on request. Sandstein 07:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references to The Shining

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide: this article (like so many) was probably made due to relieve stress on the main article on the subject. Myself (and others) have stated in other AFD's: condense the section, instead of just moving it to an article of it's own. Mentions/spoofs isn't a notable article subject. RobJ1981 04:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nom's rationale here -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of pop culture references. Trimming it down to only the non-trivial mentions, and moving those non-trivial mentions to the main article, would be the best way to go. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 05:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Checking the history, this article was actually split out from the main article last November. I'm not sure sending it back is the right approach.  Feels edit warry. - Richfife 06:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The notion of whether any fact is "trivial" is at the discretion of each individual editor. Which ones are non-trivial? Hopefully not the ones we think are non-trivial, but the ones that are verifiable against reliable sources. I have never watched the film, but it seems influential enough on popular culture, so I've been adding citations in an invesigation as to whether the amount of verifiable information warrants an article of its own. Not only sources that verify each pop culture reference, but also ones that talk about the film's impact in general. –Pomte 06:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. I understand the concern about sending it back.  However, The Shining has clearly produced a considerable impact on popular culture.  Obviously the information was considered valuable enough to save, or they would have just deleted it instead of moving it.  So, if you don't want to keep it, it needs to be merged.  I agree that the list will need considerable trimming, the cultural references to the work are worthy of mention somewhere.   CharacterZero  |  Speak  06:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm actually liking this article. It needs to be re-written so it's not a list but it has sources and cites them.  Needs some fat trimmed, by I think a good article can be written about his.  --Haemo 08:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, has a lot of sources/references for an article of this nature, but could do with a bit of tidying up. Lugnuts 11:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics and original research is not permitted. The listed things have nothing in common beyond parodying or in some cases simply mentioning the film or book, and we do not need catalogs of every time the words "The Shining" are mentioned in a TV show or movie. Especially problematic is the section focusing on the "Here's Johnny!" line. That line was originally from The Tonight Show used to introduce Johnny Carson and absent a source that each use of the line is inspired by the film and not the TV show it's OR. Oppose merging the information to the article on the book or film. Otto4711 13:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Loosely-associated is a subjective claim. The listed items do not need to have any more connection than the criteria defined by the title of the article. That issue is external to the scope of the article, and the lead-in sets out how The Shining has had a great influence on pop culture, hence significant pop culture references, asserting the notability of the list below. If there's OR, why don't you help remove them, and figure out the context of each "Here's Johnny!" quote? There'd still remain a sizeable article for further development. –Pomte 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, being within the scope of an article's title does not guarantee that the article's contents don't fail WP:NOT. List of telephone numbers for Kalamazoo, Michigan, for example, or List of quotes about chimpanzees could have contents completely defined by their titles and would still fail the policy. As for researching and sourcing the here's johnny section, since I don't believe it has encyclopedic value I don't plan to spend any time on that. I agree that "The Shining" is certainly notable, but the notability of "The Shining" does not confer notability onto every reference to it or use of the words "The Shining" in every television script. Otto4711 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are presumably no independent reliable sources on your telephone and chimpanzee examples. Sure the notability of The Shining doesn't confer notability to every single item, which is why we look for sources that assert the notability of the whole, as well as sources that assert the notability of each. It's fine that you have an opinion about the value of the content, but if you're not willing to look, how would you know? Notability becomes a completely arbitrary concept if you do not take sources into consideration. Keep the article as a work in progress, and remove any suspected OR if you like (I am not removing them personally as they are useful placeholders for citations). –Pomte 06:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are certainly independent reliable sources available for phone numbers and for quotes. The availability of reliable sources is not in question here. Even taking on faith that a reliable source exists for every single item on this list, the list as a whole still fails the provision of WP:NOT that states that as a matter of policy Wikipedia is not for directories of loosely-associated topics. An impeccably sourced directory of loosely-associated topics is still a directory and still in violation of policy. Otto4711 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition of a directory is quite vague, up to each editor's discretion. WP:NOT lists quotations, aphorisms, and persons as the examples of lists to avoid. "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic..." At least some of the items contribute to this list's topic, or else no one would talk about The Shining as a pop culture icon. When someone reads this list, they're focused on how they each relate to The Shining, not how they relate to each other. –Pomte 14:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOT. Trivia information is unencyclopedic content, and forking it off into its own article to clean up the parent article is never a good solution.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Overblown trivia fork, per reasoning of other delete arguments. Biggspowd 21:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What's trivia? –Pomte 06:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment can we only delete this if we can hit an admin in the back with an axe 80+ times...?! Lugnuts 10:55, 22 May 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.