Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saskatchewan 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. Sr13 06:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another cluttered, crufty and trivial popular culture article. One example from the article: Punk band No Fun At All's song "My Extraordinary Mind" contains the lyrics "Sunday afternoon, I was bending every spoon/Stopping all the clocks in Saskatoon." I see no importance in that at all. The province being mentioned in numerous songs and all that isn't notable. As I've stated before (and others have too): put the notable ones in the article and leave it at that. Don't branch it off to a massive list that is out of control. RobJ1981 20:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete little to no encyclopedic content. I agree with the nominator, a prose section in the main Saskatchewan article can include some of the notable examples, but a separate article is not needed.  The picture at the top says it all, the fact that the word Saskatchewan is used on a Scrabble board in a movie is completely meaningless. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Nothing more than fan cruft. -- Hot Dog Wolf   Bark!  21:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - It is cruft. Nothing but primarily pointless cruft. As suggested take the notable trivia and place it appropriately. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( ταlκ )  21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete there are no WP:RSes that Saskatechewan in popular culture is a notable phenomenon. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Again, some random mentions in movies and TV shows is not what "culture" is. If any of this is notable, and I don't think it is, it can go in the main article. -- Charlene 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if I'm Canadian, this article is another classic example of listcruft trivia with little references.--JForget 22:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete load of crap. Per nom. Oliver Keenan 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up irrelevant items. Was written with content removed from the Saskatchewan article (is a sub-article), keeps trivial info out of the main article. --Qyd 00:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree this info is trivial but we shouldn't have a separate article to act as fly paper to keep the trivia out of the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep Even if contents of article is a bit Non notable there needs to be an article about Sask in popular culture, it's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article, and I think this article warrants no more than cleanup.JoeyETS 06:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another collection of loosely associated items. If it doesn't belong in the main article it doesn't belong in its own garbage spin-off article. Better here than there is no reason for creating or keeping an article full of trivia. Otto4711 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "It's better than having it in the Saskatchewan article," in other words, better here than there. If the only reason for having an article is because not having it would clutter the main article, then there shouldn't be an article. The solution to trivial crap in the main article is to delete it, not to spin it off into a separate crap articl and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that Wikipedia is an encylopedia and should have mostly serious, important articles. But here is a case of, we have a serious article, Saskatchewan, and then we have a sub-article, that supplements it in a light, fun way. It's a separate article and people who aren't interested in that aspect of the topic don't have to click on the link to the sub-article; those who are interested can. I don't see any harm in that. Perhaps it could use a bit of trimming down, but I think that's all it needs.Moisejp 02:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid AfD argument. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per precident. Nothing more than a list of trivia. Resolute 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Cruft, subjective, unmaintainable. Blueboy96 13:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument to avoid, for which the example: "Delete as cruft" is given: "The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted." Also, in Fancruft it says that "there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects." That makes invalid all of your arguments such as "Delete. It is cruft." and "Delete load of crap." and any argument saying that it is nothing more than trivia.Moisejp 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Like most "X in popular culture" articles, this is just an indiscriminate collection of information and completely unencyclopaedic. Books and films about Saskatchewan should be discussed in the main article - I count about six, before pruning for notability, so they wouldn't clutter it. Books and films which contain a one line mention of Saskatchewan should be listed on another website, if anywhere. Iain99 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Keep it because it keeps trivia out of the main article" is a terrible reason for keeping this article.  The reason we seek to eliminate trivia sections is because typically the information does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia in the first place.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and certainly isn't an indiscriminate collection of what effectively amounts to keyword search results.  Skeezix1000 19:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and, perhaps, merge the few notable mentions back into Saskatchewan -- omtay 38  19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the article breaks the principles of Verifiability, particularly the lyrics and lines from comedy sketches, movies and cartoons.  PKT 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above discussion, but merge back some useful content as per Omtay38. With all due respect, I think most cases of listcruft are fairly obvious -- like porn, you know it when you see it.  A few cases are difficult ones, because (a) they are not obvious, (b) they have more than one nontrivial cite, (c) there is well-known/independently verifiable cultural impact, and (d) numerous non-SLA editors have edited content and references.  This article has a single source and not much else except a long list of cross-references by wikilinks. Bearian 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Woah that scrabble picture is HUGE...but I can just make out the man's words..."After precise examination, we've found zero evidence of notability"....If your province's mention in pop culture is so background that you have to magnify it and ask people to look back there and around the corner to see it...all you've got is a list of trivia. Can someone save this for the Handy guide to grading in popular culture articles? Canuckle 23:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article on Saskatchewan should certainly include significant aspects of its representation in popular culture, such as Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie, but Wikipedia absolutely doesn't need a list of every individual time the name "Saskatoon" popped up in a song lyric or a David Letterman Top 10 list. We don't need it in Saskatchewan's article, and we don't need it in a forked list, either. Delete. And start pruning and/or killing all "X in popular culture" articles, too. Bearcat 22:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' or delete all wikipdia in popular culture articles.... In comparison to other articles at In popular culture articles,  Saskatchewan in popular culture is as good, the same or better.  Would the format be better if it was modified the appearance and styling of Wikipedia in culture?  If the article can be cleaned up according to Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and the description of fictional places as objects of the narrative I believe it should be kept.  Keep... if an increase is shown in the amount of references of the author's intention as well as stating the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world.  Work on this article in this regard has commenced.  Please advise if direction taken is improving.  As a personal Saskatchewanian I take offence that a province of 588,276.09 square kilometres (227,134.67 sq mi) and population of 968,157  is not considered notable and is misspelled from some deletionists, and is considered trivia as mentioned above. Pop culture influence society and its institutions in various ways.  Culture refers to the real world and its patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance as pertaining to the province of Saskatchewan.  I have emailed No fun at all to find out what the reference was to stopping at the eateries in our slow paced relaxed city of Saskatoon, and making time stand still on a Thursday afternoon.  I will publish the answer when they reply. SriMesh |  talk  05:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Erm... nobody's saying that Saskatchewan isn't notable - just that an obsessively compiled list of every random mention of Saskatchewan in "popular culture" (whatever that is - as opposed to unpopular culture perhaps?) isn't notable. The same would be true of any state, province or country. As it stands this article tells the reader nothing useful whatsoever about Saskatchewan, except perhaps that it's occasionally used by songwriters in need of a rhyme, and even that's my interpretation, not something stated in the text. As with most of these things, there is room for a properly sourced article or section which uses significant works about Saskatchewan to demonstrate how it is perceived in culture - which aspects of it are most frequently depicted and have any of its people or places become iconic - and are Saskatchewanians generally happy with the way their province is viewed by the outside world, or have there been efforts to improve it? If you think you can write it I'll have no objections. Incidentally, I'm increasingly in favour of killing all "X in popular culture" articles and sections, as the term seems to be taken as a license to compile obsessive trivia. The few salvageable ones which attempt to tell the reader something useful about their subject should be renamed "Cultural influence of X" or "Cultural depictions of X" as happened with the Joan of Arc one. Iain99 08:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   -- Canuckle 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I know I already made my comments, but I would just like to note that according to listcruft the removal of listcruft is not official wikipedia policy, but merely an opinion of some. JoeyETS 15:02, 16 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.