Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London 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 merge to Tower of London. Very selectively, per nom.  Sandstein  18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Tower of London in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Continung the series of articles that violate WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, this time we have the Tower of London. The important difference this time is the reasonably well referenced opening prose paragraph is, for some reason, not present in the main ToL article and needs to be merged into it (which I'll be happy to do once this is closed, upon a ping by the closer, if such a merge hasn't been done yet), but the rest of the article, consisting of mostly unreferenced TVTrope'ic list of trivia, needs to go as usual. Let's spend a minute of silence considering the quality information that will be pruned, like "In the game Simcity Societies, one of the prison-like buildings, dungeon, looks-like the Tower of London." or "In the novel Stars and Stripes Triumphant, the Tower of London is partially destroyed by invading American ironclads." ... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge - the sourced prose bits to the main Tower of London article. I'm not sure if that information, on the long-held misbelief that Julius Caesar was involved in the Tower's construction, would really go into a "popular culture" section, but it should be mentioned somewhere in the main article. The rest of the non-notable, poorly source trivia should not be merged, however. Rorshacma (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Lists.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Spiderone above. Merger should be selective and not include non-notable trivia. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per others, selectively while removing cruft. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge, per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Not much to see here. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Trim, but Keep or Merge . I'm strongly against this recent campaign to eradicate all such articles. Please, if you see another nom like this let me know. It's an underhand trick to go round picking off pages that have been created following WP:SUMMARY. Piotrus, do you really have nothing more useful to do? As it stands, it's not a great page but fine to keep (and is likely to return at some point, as these things do). Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have nothing better to do than attacking other editors (in this case one who has been here for 18 years and created thousands of articles) because they disagree with you about the kind of content we should have on an encyclopedia? AusLondonder (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And also done a lot of useful work on Wikipedia-related research. This was exactly my point, and that wasn't an attack. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge with Tower of London: Again, this list provides no real support for the information provided within. Most of it is completely unsalvageable due to the amount of trivia that it contains. However, the first paragraph is worthy of a merge into the main article on the topic. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 22:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Remove trivia and merge anything useful remaining back into main article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? I haven't looked, but TOL may be a high-quality article, where a deliberate decision has been made to follow WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT and float off the pop culture section, as is very often done. Then after some long interval someone takes it into their head to have a purge of pop culture articles, & a bunch of drive-by AFD types who have barely looked at TOL vote to force it back into the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tower of London is a featured article, and already at the upper end of what would be appropriate in terms of length. A separate child article is appropriate per WP:SPLIT. Poorly-sourced cruft can be removed; other than that, there don't seem to be any substantive arguments supporting a merge. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. And did the nominator feel it worth informing TOL talk of his proposal to dump this stuff into a featured article he has previously had nothing to do with? No, he did not. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * If the FA mainterners deem the content subpar, they can delete it. Which will also further show that this content is not suitable for encyclopedia. Splitting of non-encyclopedic, low quality content into a stand-alone article does not magically improve quality. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying this content doesn't belong in the main article, which is already quite long, is not the same thing as saying it doesn't belong anywhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, considering WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * INDISCRIMINATE doesn't disallow child articles, which by their nature will include more detail about a particular subtopic than the main article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not about child articles, you seem to be making an argument saying that if we have garbage content and then it's split off, it becomes immune to any deletion. There is no such policy. INDISCRIMINATE says we should not have such content, either as sections or as stand-alone articles. Decade ago we were much more open to trivia, but these days we are trying to be, you know, more professional? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree with the nominator, not enough. ContentEditman (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and selective merge Some decent prose here that is frankly missing from the main Tower of London article should be moved there. Other rubbish such as "The Tower of London was featured on 1000 Ways to Die" (a six-season, 74 episode American television program about "unusual deaths and urban legends") can be safely deleted. I encourage editors to watch the Tower page if they are concerned about inappropriate addition of content. Lazy spin-offs is not the answer. AusLondonder (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yes it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have a fundamentally different understanding of what Wikipedia is to my understanding then. AusLondonder (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - as per Blenheim, see below. KJP1 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2022 (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.