Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The London Eye in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

The subject of the article is non-notable, there do no seem to be any sensible sources covering the role of the London eye in popular culture. This is simply a trivial and indiscriminate list of instances where it has been featured. Brilliantine (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The London Eye itself is very notable. The article is certainly original research, as the nominator correctly pointed out, however it falls well within WP established practice. Lists of "in popular culture" instances are all over the place here, and most of them are about things less well-known than the Eye.Northwestgnome (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that the London Eye is notable. 'The London Eye in popular culture' is not, however, a notable subject. There need to be sources that cover the subject of the article in depth. If you can find a couple of these of these, I'll be hapy to reconsider. By the way, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid rationale for keeping. Brilliantine (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A list of the uses of a very notable object in notable films and other works in appropriate. In it not indiscriminate, since it is limited to the notable works in which it appears not all possible works. A well accepted type of article, Whether it should be limited to those instances where it plays a significant role in the story is an editorial decision, not a matter for AfD. In   some of the works, it clearly does.   DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are the secondary sources covering the article subject? Why is such a list appropriate for an encyclopedia? Brilliantine (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep There is actually a fully notable article on the London Eye but the creators of the article presently under discussion forgot to do a blue link. I will do that now. Otherwise, I am of the opinion that these "...in popular culture" articles should be merged into the parent topic for efficiency, but in this case it looks like this is a list with some utility, though it needs to be cleaned up and references should be added. Doomsdayer520  (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The cultural references to the London Eye is not a notable subject, nor is this the way we should be presenting trivia.  Them  From  Space  18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Gigs (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close/Procedural keep - this content was spun off from London Eye on Jan 1, 2008 and as far as I can tell, not reverted since. By comparison, other mass removals in 2008 were reverted. diff.  As such, this should not be an AFD but it should be a MERGE discussion.  If the editors of the two articles want to merge the content, or if the consensus of merger talks is that the content is no longer needed, then an AFD is appropriate.   A proper AFD would start off with Delete per London Eye and be immediately supported by most of the participants of that discussion.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  21:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not follow the logic of this argument. Just because it could be done that way does not mean it has to be done that way. Merge is a possible outcome for an AFD discussion. The main thrust of my argument is that the article subject - the influence of the London Eye in popular culture - is non-notable. That is the reason for the AFD. If consensus is to merge, so be it. If consensus is to delete with no merging, so be it. If consensus is to do something else, so be it. Brilliantine (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of my statement was to say that even if there was good reason to delete this article as a stand-alone article, it should be procedurally merged prior to deletion because its content was split off from of another article, and the editors of that article clearly did not want the content removed from the wiki. An acceptable way to do a "procedural merge" would be to block-copy the text to the destination article as a new section then revert the edit, and copy the edit history to a sub-page of the target article, and put a note on the target article's talk page saying what just happened and why and inviting editors of that argument to either put the preserved-in-the-edit-history content back into that article or not as they saw fit.  Then delete the article.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that or a standard merge/redirect would be viewed by me as acceptable alternatives to outright deletion of all of the content. However, since it is mostly unsourced, I don't think a lot of it would stick around very long in the main article. In any case, this AFD is surely the best venue to decide which option consensus favours, since merge is a possible AFD outcome. Brilliantine (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Lists (the article is discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, navigational, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) as the subject of the article is notable as a result of sensible sources covering the role of the London eye in popular culture. This article is a non-trivial and discriminate list of instances where it has been featured.   The cultural references to the London Eye is a notable subject and it is discussed in the way we should be presenting information important to those who have contributed to this article.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources covering the role of the London Eye in popular culture? There are certainly none in the article, and I can't find any. Why, in that case, would you consider such a list notable? I'm afraid I have to admit I don't understand the point you are trying to make with your last sentence, either. Brilliantine (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From a WP:V perspective, each line item is itself a source. Take "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) Featured during a Wizard Chase scene."  The movie is the source.  Specifically, the chase scene.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  19:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But to demonstrate the notability of the article subject - the London Eye in popular culture - secondary sources covering the London Eye's place in popular culture must support the article. With regard to specific list items, the significance of the references should really be demonstrated. Otherwise, the list has no objective inclusion criteria and becomes pretty indiscriminate. Lastly, to build a stand-alone article such as this out of self-verifying primary sources is original research. Brilliantine (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, this didn't start life as a stand-alone article. It was spun off a couple of years ago, probably to keep the main article from being dominated by the items in this list.  In light of this,  argument that "this topic does not meet the requirements for a stand alone article" is pretty much by definition an argument for an involuntary merge/de-split, not an argument for deletion. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge is a possible outcome to an AFD. Consensus from AFD can be for an involuntary merge. However it might also be considered that the material is not appropriate for Wikipedia at all. This is why it's here, and it's as good a venue as any. Brilliantine (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This demonstrates how notable something is, it featured in many notable media.  D r e a m Focus  02:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any media that focuses on the role of the London Eye in popular culture. I see plenty of media that features the London Eye. So, that article is notable, but this one is not. Brilliantine (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better name for the article would be Mentions of the London Eye in notable media. Popular culture means notable media.   D r e a m Focus  20:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then the sources would need to explore the concept of the London Eye being mentioned in notable media, rather than simply list mentions. I can see no hope of it doing that. Brilliantine (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a list article, so its just a list, nothing more. They normally break away this information from the main article.   D r e a m Focus  10:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or in the alternative merge with The London Eye Ikip 17:50, 20 December 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.