Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shangri-La 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 without prejudice. Consensus is that pages like this don't deserve to exist; postdlf is welcome to userfy the page if he thinks he can make it a notable subject Shii (tock) 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Shangri-La in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unsourced trivia, basically amounts to "This work is named Shangri-La or has it name-dropped." There isn't even an intro to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * delete with extreme prejudice, and anything else even vaguely like it Wikipedia is not a collection of references to commonplace literary tropes and allusions. Mangoe (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Indiscriminate unsourced list of random non-notable trivia like
 * 'Lush Cosmetics' makes a facial moisturizer called 'Skin's Shangri-La'.
 * Clearly put together by Googling for any mention of the name "Shangri La". Great comedic value, though. Best laugh I had all day! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, but, if anyone cares to, create a brand new wiki, not associated with the foundation, for all the crufty "in popular culture" listings. imagine 10,000 articles, all like this. what a project that would be. "sex" in popular culture, "popular culture" in popular culture, yum.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all the criticism above; it is completely worthless to just compile endless lists of every time a term is used in some pop culture work, because those works aren't about that term or concept in any meaningful way. It's kind of like having a "reverse annotation"--instead of explaining a term in the article in that work (if it is meaningful), this just listed the works that use the term.  It certainly doesn't add to my knowledge of "Shangri-La" any more to know that the main characters in White Men Can't Jump stay at the Shangri-La Hotel in the movie (and it doesn't add to my knowledge of that movie, either).  That kind of subtrivia is almost as bad as listing all the movies in which a character says the word "paradise."  But loathsome though that is, not all pop culture references are so trivial, nor are "in popular culture" sections always so insubstantial, so this shouldn't be taken as representative.  It's simply about as bad as it can get.  But I took a stab at salvaging this one anyway.  So my version imported an intro from the Shangri-La article, and cleared out the non-notable and the mere references, such as things merely titled after Shangri-La (lots and lots of songs, mainly) that are more properly listed at Shangri-La (disambiguation) and all those movies in which someone at some point says "Shangri-La".  What we're now left with appears to be substantive depictions of Shangri-La, or works to which Shangri-La is integral, or parodies of Shangri-La.  Maybe even with those the usage is too generic, or maybe those should be listed as parodies of Lost Horizon rather than here, but I think it might have potential now that the worst cruft has been cleared away.  postdlf (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2011 (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.