Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chronicles of Narnia 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. Jaranda wat's sup 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists of a collection of references to Narnia in popular culture. In order to write a proper article, the article would have to be based on reliable sources that discuss the book's effects on popular culture ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or at least rename to "List of...". Leaning to Deletion: fancruft and WP:V.--ZayZayEM 01:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP is not a trivia colletion Corpx 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename obviously a list and not an article. It does keep fancruft out of the "real" articles on this topic. LloydSommerer 01:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge relevant info to The Chronicles of Narnia Giggy  UCP 01:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, is not merely trivia, it is a comprehensive list that expands both the parents article (demonstrating the effect of Chronicles in society and its cultural significance) and the listed medium (connecting them and exploring their influences). Impossible to integrate into the original article and maintain the scope of the deleted one Guycalledryan 02:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ...connecting them and exploring their influences No it does not do that, nor can it without sources ObiterDicta' ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking at the history of this article, it is clear that it was moved out of the main article because it was getting too unwieldy. Deleting the article will only mean that the content will find its way back into the main article either immediately or over time; merging will definitely stick the material right back into the main article.  Keep is clearly the best course of action. -- DS1953 talk  04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial and cluttered listcruft. Long sections should only be moved if it's notable on it's own. A list of mentions is very trivial and lacks notability. Keep the important notes in the main article. Condense the section, don't spread it to a new article if it's not necessary. RobJ1981 04:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The references in other cultural settings illustrates greatly the popularity of the Narnia books, and contributes significantly to its notability. Pop culture != trivia. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:TRIVIA defines it as " lists of isolated facts only loosely regarding the topic". I think this is exactly what that's referring to Corpx 07:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Lots of mentions doesn't make it a notable list subject. A massive list of mentions = trivia/listcruft. The article has no sources as well. So it's unsourced trivia and listcruft. Notable mentions (if there is any) should be in the main article, and leave it at that. A list of any or all mentions isn't the correct way to prove popularity. RobJ1981 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Would like to see more cites, however I wouldn't argue lack of being reason for deletion. The machine512 07:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a lack of available secondary sources that will be able to establish a connection between The Magician's Nephew in a Lost hatch and the overall importance of Narnia in popular culture and similar other trivia bits. Do you have a reason for keeping the article (which is different than saying it shouldn't be deleted, I believe)?  María ( críticame ) 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO, pop culture references for any well known piece of work always add to the intrigue and quality of the article or topic. The article appears to be a break off from The Chronicles of Narnia and while not fully cited most of the information seems valid. A lot of work has been put into this over time and it would be a shame to delete it just because it is untidy. Propose cleanup and validation tags. The machine512 18:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Pages of this type are not legitimate articles, and will never become legitimate. The longer they get, the worse they become. Hawkestone 11:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a violation of WP:NOT and ample precedent as of late. It's trivial, unsourced, unencyclopedic listcruft, and a majority of the items listed have nothing to do with the impact of Narnia in popular culture, but rather it lists every single time anything about Narnia was ever mentioned.  María ( críticame ) 12:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was a lot more open to "in popular culture" articles before I started seeing ten of them on AFD every day and realized how meaningless they tend to be. Someone should just start a separate Wiki for this stuff. Propaniac 13:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am not keen in "in popular culture" articles because the are usually stretched to the edges by taking any singly tiny similarity and present it. But... i checked this article and i find it better than many many others on the same theme. After all, is part of a bigger article about the Chronicles of Narnia. Magioladitis 16:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is part of a bigger article about the Chronicles of Narnia, add any sourced trivia there then. Otherwise, just Delete this indiscriminate ragbag of trivial information. - fchd 12:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Trivia is just that...Trivia. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. Trusilver 16:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep . Buried in the list are some notable nuggets Delete. I changed vote in mid-composition. Although there are some nuggets of notable items in this list, these few can be accommodated in Influence on Others section of Chronicles of Narnia. Canuckle 18:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not and cannot meet Verifiability, particularly since most of it appears to be original research. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 18:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's interesting, but it's trivia. the_undertow talk  22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete what it is useless with some merge to the The Chronicles of Narnia. JForget 01:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:POPCULTURE I think hits it on the head, as this AfD is part of an endless cycle of fancruft trivia getting understandably forked off, deleted, put back in main article, and forked off again. Merging and resonably maintaing trivia in an article is NOT easy. If consensus is to delete this article, it will back here in AfD soon enough. Lipsticked Pig 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Merging it into the main article is an insult to C.S. Lewis. Although this actually has some useful stuff, like those works that were inspired by TLTWATW, nobody cares if someone says "Narnia" on NCIS.  Mandsford 02:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete a,pmg with all other "X in popular culutre" articles. Such articles are hardly encyclopediac.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It's full of trivia. Per WP:HTRIVIA, each statement should be merged into its respective main subject.--Kylohk 03:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you want ot argue encyclopedic then crack open any encyclopeida and tell me how many bands and tv shows and movies there are. This isn't an issue of encyclopedic, this is a matter of whether it can be fixed. IT can be fixed, so it should. You wil lnto crash the Wikipedia servers by leaving this page. It can be fixed, let it. -Violask81976 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - no, the books, films, bands, TV shows etc. themselves are perfectly encyclopaedic. It's the "references to xxx in popular culture" that is at question here. - fchd 16:26, 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.