Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth 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 cast into the fires of Mount Doom. --Core desat 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Middle-earth in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another "in pop culture" article. While I'll admit that the lead is written well enough and it is organized correctly. It still does not disregard the fact that it is simply an article filled with trivial references of "that time that that show mentioned the name Gandalf!") How is this information useful? Some may argue that it paints a picture of how broad cultural impact the works of Tolkien have been. However, on an encyclopedia, we're not here to paint a picture. We're here to state the facts in the most elegant, yet efficient way possible. Since it's information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article). This not to mention WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:ATT and probably more policy pages that it violates. The Filmaker 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - yet another mass of trivial piffle gathered on a page pretending to be an article. We do not need a directory of every single time someone in any fictional medium or even in real life says "hobbit" or "gollum" or "one ring" or whatever other fragment of Tolkienity some script writer happens to drop into a TV show. And before anyone suggests it, DO NOT MERGE a word of this into any other article on any other aspect of Tolkien or his works. It is worthless garbage in its own article and it is worthless garbage in any other article. Otto4711 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another unencyclopedic trivia article and a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not. *** Crotalus *** 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Another 'Spot the insignificant one line passoffs to a major work' list, completely unsourced, completely unverified, and no indication that anyone has studied the subject as a whole, making this an original synthesis of unrelated material. Delete. -- saberwyn 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cast into the fires of Mount Doom for being one of the daftest "in popular culture" articles I have ever seen. Not sourced, not verfied and probably original research. (Obviously deleting this article would be have to be without prejudice to my latest article "Fictitious teaspoons in popular culture.") A1octopus 22:01, 17 May 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.