Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of references to Lost in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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, no redirect. Unlikely that anyone would type List of references to Lost in popular culture. Sr13 00:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

List of references to Lost in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is not notable and I cannot see how this page is useful. In a nutshell, it says that Lost is referenced many times in pop culture, but that is already well summarized in Lost (TV series). Delete (and redirect to Lost (TV series)). --thedemonhog talk • edits 19:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a bunch of trivia about trivia. Lost IS popular culture. -- Charlene 19:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate list of loosely associated terms, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 20:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Out of retirement to speak on this topic (again). Those who cite WP:NOT, sometimes seem to miss the first paragraph, Wikipedia is not paper, whose meta-article points out: "The key to avoiding information overload is to break an article down into more than one page (long articles require many sub-headings anyway)... As a more general example: Acme, an overview;    Physical description of acme;  Relationship with zeta; Acme in popular culture. These can start out as section headings and be broken out into separate pages as the main article becomes too long.."   There is an entire category of In popular culture articles. This particular article's contents are, for the most part, notable and cited. So long as it is kept pruned to verifiable material, it is entirely in keeping with Wikipedia standards. -- LeflymanTalk 21:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Leflyman's back! --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:PAPER is not freedom to do whatever you want. This article does exactly what WP:NOT says not to do. No matter what is done to the article it does not meet Wikipedia standards. If you keep reading from where you quoted, "On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base of any and all information". Jay32183 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, "in popular culture" sections are okay if they contain a few notable, representative examples. Include every example of something being mentioned in pop culture, and it crosses the line from not being paper to being an ICoI. Morgan Wick 23:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See extensive discussion at "In popular culture" articles -- LeflymanTalk 10:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete listcruft trivia with if necessary some merge to main article.--JForget 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All "in popular culture" articles are research notes with a tendency (unlike other types of article) to get worse over time. All that is needed is a short well written section in the main article. Piccadilly 22:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I like 'In popular culture' articles, and I like Lost. I have weighed in with keep on a lot of these, but Lost is too new for this to be useful information.  Everything on TV gets parodied or mentioned on the news or whatever. Capmango 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. per argument just above. I'm willing to keep articles about "notable" portrayals/impacts in/on popular culture but this looks too new and the references too minor. Can someone come up with a guideline, specific to this 'genre'? Canuckle 23:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete every 108 minutes - another "ooh, look, the numbers!" compilation of trivial references. The items from which the references are drawn have no relationship to one another beyond the fleeting reference to Lost. This tells us nothing about Lost, the fiction from which the references are drawn, or the real world. The sole item that's worth a mention is the lottery item, and that can be housed quite comfortably in the main article or in the article for the episode in which the numbers first appear. Otto4711 00:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This encylopedia is not the place to categorize every time somebody mentions something on TV.  If it is, somebody should watch all the late night talk shows and catalog every time they mention a show / person / animal Corpx 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, because passed a previous discussion, concerns an incredibly popular and noteworthy show, culture is definitely relevant to encyclopedias, etc., etc. --164.107.222.23 02:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If people want to make trivia lists, maybe they should start a fan site? This leads to no greater understanding of Lost.--Crossmr 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely delete. Clear case of WP:TRIV; since there's no sections to integrate into, it's just a collection of junk facts. Anything relevant will already be in the appropriate articles. Daniel C/T+ 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: What the hell, it is a cool and informative page. You guys are boring. -- Silva  Storm  
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 13:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the usual arguments, especially considering that Lost is still an ongoing show, and its so-called impact on popular culture is unlikely to be determined at this point. This is just a list of loosely associated entries that are not made famous as a result of referring to Lost. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete It's a nice long list, but most of the information is pretty trivial and unuseful. • 97198  talk  14:13, 7 July 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.