Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piano wire 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 delete. Note that this AfD can also be used as a speedy deletion reason for Violin bows in popular culture should that article ever be created. :-) —Doug Bell talk 07:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Piano wire in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - trivial to the point of worthlessness. Otto4711 19:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's nothing to merge with Piano wire, and besides, what's next? "Violin bows in popular culture"? "24-gauge wire in popular culture"? "Stationary ergodic processes in popular culture"? We can't have everything. --N Shar 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per N Shar and nom. Also because it does not mention the Fawlty Towers episode in which Basil Fawlty says "Trespassers will be strung up with piano wire". Sam Blacketer 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Mentioned above is what kind of "...in popular culture" we'll get next. I have to say, with all the "...in popular culture" that is coming up, soon we'll have "Nintendo Wii Opera internet browser (or Internet Channel) Trial Version rubbish favourites (Opera.com and Wii.com) and slow loading times in popular culture". Seriously. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 20:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per NOT. --Peta 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The purpose of this page is not to exist for its own sake but to keep garbage off the page for Piano wire.  This is a standard practice on the Wikipedia; for discussion, see Category talk:In popular culture.  So please, make it easier for the editors who work on Piano wire to keep this article free of junk by retaining the popular-culture page. Opus33 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention to make life harder for the people who edit Piano wire. However, offloading junk information from that article to this one does not solve the problem. It simply turns it into someone else's problem. Otto4711 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the point of such an article, but nevertheless think the right solution in this case is to Merge with piano wire. It may be inconvenient to the editor to keep having popular junk added.  However unless the section becomes very large (and so needs a separate article), it is probably better to put up with it (ignoring it).  Deleting the article will certainly mean that 'popular culture' keeps getting added to piano wire, whether you want it or not.  Peterkingiron 09:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merging junk information into other articles isn't the right solution. The right solution is to remove the information entirely. Otto4711 13:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be "trash bins" to divert unsuitable content from other articles. Saikokira 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleanup verify etc.. but nothing inherently wrong with the articles existence. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --MacRusgail 03:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to piano wire. This is not junk, and not that indiscriminate (though it will need to be kept that way).  If it has a verifiable cultural significance, there is no reason to delete it.  &mdash;siro&chi;o 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the verifiable cultural significance of Quint's using piano wire for his fishing line as opposed to some other kind of wire or line? The article makes no mention of any cultural significance nor does it offer any hint of real-world analysis per WP:FICT. Otto4711 21:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is really not useful information - and is just an indiscriminate list anyway. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  00:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back to piano wire. As it stands, a list of only three pop culture references doesn't qualify as enough "garbage" to fork off into a separate article. Caknuck 02:33, 25 February 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.