Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lobotomy 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Lobotomy in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I would have said merge to the parent article, but it is virtually impossible with the amount of details, although some info can be transferred there.--JForget 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure trivia, indiscriminate list, and even original research. Useight 00:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge into the main article.  Wikipedia is not the place to categorize mentions like this- Too Trivial Corpx 00:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - as tasteless as it is pointless Kripto 01:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Useight. None of this is notable. -- Charlene 04:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a list of loosely related terms, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 20:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. There are no independent, secondary sources providing significant coverage to assert this topic's notability, per notability standards.  Just about all of these entries are not made famous as a result of a lobotomy mentioned, and is really just indiscriminate trivia of which editors could personally list examples endlessly. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Keep Ur... durr... UFFH! UFFH! --Perceive 03:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think that's a valid explanation. Corpx 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No-brainer. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 04:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and current trend. Unsourced indiscriminate trivia and violates WP:NOT. María ( críticame ) 18:56, 3 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.