Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of references to Lost 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 no consensus to delete. A merge could be discussed on the talk page, no need for afd. W.marsh 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

List of references to Lost in popular culture


WP:OR Eryyut 01:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC) — Eryyut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, please state a proper reason for deletion and use your main Wikipedia account to make the nomination. &mdash;  Da rk Sh ik ar i   talk /contribs  01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge into Lost (TV series); it has good info that doesn't seem to be WP:OR. Cbrown1023 02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge insto Lost (TV series) per Cbrown. TJ Spyke 02:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Referenced, and a bit large to merge into the main article, which is already fairly long. Shimeru 04:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Article is fine as a separate entity. Resolute 04:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shimeru. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 05:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shimeru. --Opark 77 11:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete yet more Lostcruft. Completely arbitrary.  Take it to Lostpedia. Guy 11:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not just listcruft, it's Lostcruft. Listlostcruft. Bleh. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "Listlostcruft" may well be the pithiest WP neologism I have ever seen. IronDuke  19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or Merge into Lost (TV series) where it had been previously until it was decided that there was enough information for it to merit its own article. --theDemonHog 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Is "References to Lost in popular culture" an acceptable topic?  I think it isn't, and by extension, a list of individual references isn't, either.  The Literate Engineer 20:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Merge to Lost (TV series). That is how it has always been done. --Ineffable3000 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Delete per Ineffable. --SandyDancer 00:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Lost (TV series). Edison 03:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article brings whole new nuances to the word "trivia". This kind of near-parody of an article lowers the collective quality of Wikipedia. PKtm 04:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Shimeru. Battle Ape 12:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is Wikipedia, not Lostopedia. Irremediably crufty, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep but clean-up. (ObNote: I spun-off this List from the main article due to length.) This is neither Original Research, nor an "indescriminate collection of information" (a commonly cited, but poorly understood section of WP:NOT). It is an attempt to organise the major references to the series Lost as they appear in popular culture. The precedents for this are clear: there are thousands of "in popular culture" articles on Wikipedia, e.g.:
 * Jeopardy! in popular culture
 * Twin_Peaks_in_popular_culture
 * Fight_Club_in_popular_culture
 * Aleister_Crowley_in_popular_culture
 * The Big Lebowski in popular culture
 * And even, Wikipedia_in_popular_culture
 * And this one imposes greater requirements for citation: nearly every item included is referenced, or has the particular source within the entry. This is rightly called a "list of references" until some diligent editor takes the initiative and starts the conversion process into prose. Many similar articles have started their life in this fashion; being a long list is no reason for deletion-- it is nowhere near the length of List_of_cultural_references_to_Star_Wars-- but for editing and pruning. This should not be re-merged, as it was moved precisely because it had grown to such content; removing it entirely would make the section Lost_%28TV_series%29 balloon. For further info on Lists, See WP:LIST and Lists (stand-alone lists).-- LeflymanTalk 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I should also note that there's a whole Category:In_popular_culture.-- LeflymanTalk 20:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but Merge: I think that this article should be cleaned up (as per other comments) and merged with Lost main page - another show article that incorporates references in pop culture is the Buffy the Vampire Slayer main site, if anyone wants to check it out (just got featured article status recently!). Riverbend 20:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a long list, and it is not unusual to spin off a long list from the main article. Plenty of other lists just like this one too, and frankly, while I might not find it useful, someone else might. We don't have to emulate Britannica here. Robovski 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Wikipedia doesn't need original research list pages of pop culture references. It's bad enough that many episode articles of shows have insanely huge lists of pop culture references. Yes, shows and films have pop culture references: but it's not completely necessary to have a huge list of them. Keep the important ones only. RobJ1981 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Per Leflyman Mahahahaneapneap 20:48, 9 November 2006 (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.