Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media featuring brains in jars


 * 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 12:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Media featuring brains in jars
The title should say it all: unsourced list of randomized trivia facts from variety of media outlets. Because Wikipedia is not a discriminate collection of information, I nominate this for deletion. I know it's kinda funny, so I advise you to read WP:ILIKEIT. Renata 14:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Coming next... media featuring pigs in the sky. Delete as article featuring induscriminate collection of information. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-18 14:30Z 
 * Delete as beyond unencylopedic and utterly pointless. The idea of having this article is funny; the actual article just shows that some people have entirely too much time on their hands. Daniel Case 16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This list does not appear indiscriminate to me.  Rather, it seems very well-defined: media featuring brains in jars.  WP:NOT says nothing about such (i.e. clearly defined) lists, at least by my reading.  Also, these are not unsourced.  The source is given in every item: it says what film, tv show, or novel (etc.) the "brain in a jar" occurs.  I'm willing to change my mind, as I'm learning here (I've not been involved in many AfDs), but this is how it strikes me at the moment.  Also, I can think of numerous points to this list (i.e., it is not pointless), and I think Mr. Case's claim about time on people's hands seems akin to an "I don't like it" argument, which is not valid in AfD, yes? Cheers, Doctormatt 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the greater point of having this? Back in the day, this was the sort of thing that made the now-defunct Useless WWW Pages and Mirsky's Worst of the Web. My argument was not that "I don't like it", it's akin to saying the entire list is essentially a trivia section. What's next? "Media featuring peanut butter and jelly sandwiches"? Just because someone thinks this sort of thing is cool and otherwise follows Wikipedia procedure does not automatically make the subject of the article Wikipedia-worthy. If you're going to accuse me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would say that your argument for keeping boils down to WP:ILIKEIT. Daniel Case 17:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, you want a valid reason for deleting this? From WP:TRIVIA:

''Just as trivia sections should be avoided, trivia articles should be avoided. Unlike trivia sections, trivia articles are not especially useful as repositories of information to be integrated elsewhere.''
 * Daniel Case 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. You may be right in saying that the inclusion criteria are fairly well defined and thus this really isn't a violation of WP:NOT, but scroll up to the previous section - WP:NOT.  This is clearly a list of loosely related topics, and having little to nothing in common other than featuring a brain-in-a-jar at some point is not a defining characteristic of these media.   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes more sense to me. How do folks feel about Leprechauns_in_popular_culture?  This is a list of things that have little in common besides having a leprechaun (or leprechaun) reference. Not that consistency is really a human trait, but would these AfD criteria apply equally well to that article?  There are tons of other "in popular culture" articles that seem (to me) at least as trivial, and more indiscrimate than this article. Doctormatt 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the issue of "Whatever in popular culture" type articles is a hot-button topic here on AfD lately, and if you scroll through some of the recent archives you're bound to find quite a few of them. There is a decently sized essay on the topic at WP:IPC if you want to take a peek at that, but if you are interested in my personal opinion, those types of articles are warranted if they contain sources to explain why the topic is important in popular culture/media/etc, rather than just being a list of appearances.  Just my two cents, of course!  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: I created this article to break it off from the brain in a vat article, which MANY people seemed to erroneously think was a repository for "media featuring brains in jars". The size of the list at the time made it clear that Wikipedia editors wanted a list of "media featuring brains in jars", although they were creating that list in the wrong place. I do not have an opinion one way or the other on whether this article should be kept, but I fear that if it is deleted that people will go back to adding lists of "media featuring brains in jars" to the brain in a vat article. Luvcraft 22:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Get rid of the References in popular culture section in the brain in a vat article and you will have less of a problem. Once a bit of silliness gets in, more will clamour to be included. It's like some sort of lemming effect. Resurgent insurgent 01:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments outline in WP:TRIVIA. This is an unreferenced, unencyclopedic list which has no real encyclopedic merit.  If people want to keep an indiscriminate list of appearances of brain in jars, they can do it elsewhere. --Haemo 23:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and add the title to the list at WP:DAFT. Grutness...wha?  00:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete lack sources, too trivial. Though I suggest looking into the possibility of improving the article on brain transplants or creating one on brain cloning instead of going this direction.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:08, 19 April 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.