Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references to Rock, Paper, Scissors


 * 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

List of pop culture references to Rock, Paper, Scissors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - this is an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture not only every appearance of R-P-S in every medium ever regardless of whether that appearance has any actual significance or not, but everything that in the opinion of an editor kinda sorta resembles R-P-S or maybe has a similar structure to R-P-S, of course not having any sources to back up the assertion. Otto4711 14:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research, unnecessary list, unverified. Walton monarchist89 14:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - A hopeless mess of original research and an indiscriminate list. If, however, reliable sources are found, I withdraw my um, "opinion?" "motion?". --Sapphire Flame 15:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per WaltonMonarchist Cornell Rockey 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, any that are truly notable and sourced can go into Rock, Paper, Scissors.--UsaSatsui 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this was originally a fork from Rock Paper Scissors because the list had grown far to large. I'm agnostic about keeping the article, but let's not merge too much of it back into the original article.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, when these sections get too large, trimming the section is the proper course. If your house gets filled with trash, you take it out, you don't build a new house to hold the trash in.  --UsaSatsui 23:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep You seem to be trying to make this look like a POV issue. It is not. It is verifiable. There is no good reason to delete this article. Cosmetor 08:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about POV? It's not POV.  It's being challenged under the WP:NOT, WP:LIST, and WP:OR...and while I agree it is verifiable, it's not sourced.  There's plenty of good reasons to delete it. --UsaSatsui 23:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is, obviously, the work of fiction itself. It can clearly be seen whether they involve RPS simply by reading/watching/playing them. The facts of the matter have been "published" by default. Cosmetor 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The source still needs to be in the article, and in many cases it's not on this list...but even if we give you that point, that's only one concern. It's being challenged under more than verifiability. --UsaSatsui 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete my big concern is that this is unmaintainable. A widely known game being used in popular culture - yippee, this gets "referenced to" a lot, whatever that means. Perhaps resurrect it in the main article and trim the heck out of it. (And besides, this list is sacrilegious because it doesn't even include the obligatory reference to the Monty Python reference ("Ypres 1914", in episode 25 of Monty Python's Flying Circus). =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Quotefarm and no sources. Also is just too funny to be encyclopediac. Possibly a WP:POINT creation.--Sefringle 06:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it's a WP:POINT creation? Please WP:AGF.  Regarding funniness, please see, WP:UA.  While I think there are some good reasons why this article should be deleted, I'm a bit frustrated by the repeated use of its lack of sources.  I don't think a lack of sources is a legitimate reason for deletion, only a lack of verifiability.  This article is clearly verifiable, even if it's not encyclopedic.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete indescriminant and trivial list. Eluchil404 07:35, 28 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.