Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qilin 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   keep. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Qilin in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivial listcruft that shows no signs of notability. If there is any important ones, they belong in a small section in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge selected material, if sourceable, to the main article. if no sources found (hopefully the linked articles already mention the connection), delete per nom.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, with one exception, the material is completely unsourced and therefore unsuitable for merging. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC).
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC) These references are needed, and it has just been shown that they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article.  DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep 'Trivial' is an aesthetic posing as notability, and all nominator's arguments, including listcruft are various forms of unbacked WP:IDL assertions. Sourcing is a talk page issue, and yet is the only argument worth addressing, by default. Nine out of nine citations for the first nine instances in popular culture; it is as easy as entering the source and 'Kirin' on Google or Yahoo and hitting 'enter'. Deletionists are lazy.
 * Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.


 * Keep Speaking as a user of Wikipedia as well as an editor, I often find WP's summaries of pop culture references very useful, however much they may offend the aesthetic sensibilities of some encyclopedists. I did a little sorting to bring some order to the article. Nareek (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2009 (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.