Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to imps 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 as inherently crufty list. Daniel Case 02:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

References to imps in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Just a list of loosely associated topics, WP:NOT Jay32183 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the article says, "This is a list of imps as they appear in literature, mythology, and other cultural references, including modern day settings (such as video games)." In other words, it's a list of any mention of imps in any medium from the middle ages to today; that is to say, an indiscriminate collection of trivia loosely related to imps.  --Haemo 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment IMPossible to maintain. Nobody worries about imps anymore.  Mandsford 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Also pure trivia! WP:5 Corpx 02:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add references and clean up style/grammar, especially in terms of italicizing names of games, books, etc. -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Making those changes doesn't fix the problem with WP:NOT. Jay32183 03:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the problem lies with WP:NOT, because the large number of "in popular culture" articles that have been created and the tremendous number of people who have worked on them suggest that a LOT of Wikipedians see value in these articles. I'm afraid that by deleting articles that those who don't like could just ignore, but that hundreds (thousands?) of editors find worthwhile, but who might be unaware of AfDs will wind up just mass alienating editors.  Anyway, just a thought.  I'll focus again on some first sentence improvements in articles for now, but just wanted to offer that idea.  Have a nice night!  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those concerns would be better addressed on the WP:NOT talk page Corpx 03:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely indiscriminate, loosely associated trivia. Crazysuit 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't a trivia guide. RobJ1981 04:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivia. Some might see value in these lists but unless the subject's contribution to popular culture is notable and notability is asserted and verifiable then it's just trivia. --Malcolmxl5 07:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced, loosely connected, indiscriminate trivia. Most of the "pop culture" is apparently from video games and can be summed up in the main article as "Imps often appear in video games."  There is no need to violate WP:NOT with such encyclopedic material. María ( críticame ) 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   — María ( críticame ) 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete None of these sets of scrappy un-filtered notes can ever become a encyclopedia article. Golfcam 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Culturelistcruft. Realkyhick 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above; also, not much more than a disambiguation page. Bearian 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this list has a good disucussion of the items, and is therefore encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No one said it was discussed poorly, the problem is that it is a list of loosely associated terms. Jay32183 02:50, 25 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.