Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. B. Yeats 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 any sourced content to W. B. Yeats or to the articles about the individual works. Since no content is currently sourced inline, I am redirecting the article to W. B. Yeats. Any mergers can take place from the history once sources are supplied. Sandstein 14:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

W. B. Yeats in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - another unsourced laundry list/garbage dump of a trivia repository that seeks to capture every time a line from Yeats is quoted anywhere. The listed items tell us nothing about Yeats, his poetry, the items from which the fiction is drawn, how he supposedly served as an "inspiration" (as opposed to, say, the line just sounded cool) for the listed items, how the listed items relate to each other or the world around us. Otto4711 15:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * comment a larger scale razzia on Category:In popular culture may be necessary. I mean, seriously, Cultural impact of Wonder Woman, Godzilla in popular culture, Pop culture influenced by Sesame Street, these really belong in a Category:Popular culture in popular culture. dab (𒁳) 15:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any of these items that are properly referenced by verifiable sources as being allusions to his work to the article for the specific work (I don't think there are any properly referenced items, but maybe I missed a few). Then redirect. If no merges are appropriate, then delete. Propaniac 15:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete I like Yeats a lot but this seems more like trivia. If any of the information was needed it could be listed on their individual pages. NobutoraTakeda 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken.
 * Merge relevant items per Propaniac and delete the bulk. A popular culture article that isn't mainly meaningless passing references in Family Guy, The Simpsons, King of the Hill, etc., etc., is a thing of wonder and sight to behold, but most of these are not references to Yeats; they're references to specific writings of Yeats. Notable items should be moved to the article on the writing in question (and not the "in popular culture" article either, but the article on the work itself) or to the article on Yeats. Simple mentions of Yeats or his works are not generally notable and should be deleted. -- Charlene 16:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The usual for such articles - merge the good, delete the bad. Shalom Hello 16:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I created the page a weeks back in order to spin it you from the main Yeats article which is currently under FAR. Its presence was a primary for reason calling the review. I don't care if you delete it, but I feel very strongly against any level of reinsertion or any form of merger. So much informed and considered analysis has been writted about Yeats in the last 100 years that it was tough enough not to let the article grow to level above that allowed by the FA criteria. There's better stuff out there to include. Ceoil 18:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge what's important and sourced, delete the rest, per others above. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * None of it is important and none of it is sourced. It's all incidental and of trivial inportance to the partent article. Ceoil 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Partial Merge per above, otherwise delete the rest since it is as plenty of other IPC articles unsourced and full of trivia.--JForget 22:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge the non-trivia, and delete the rest. --Haemo 00:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do Not Merge, it was removed from the main article because it is unencylopedic content. It should not be merged back to the main article, as the main article is being reworked to retain featured status.  I don't care if it's deleted or kept.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but every single merge vote has specified to merge only the content that is encyclopedic, and properly referenced, if such content exists. I don't know why multiple people have responded as if anyone is suggesting to just copy and paste the whole mess back into the original article. Propaniac 13:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats fair enough Propaniac, not really sure how this process works, so forgive the noob. Ceoil 14:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the point remains, Propaniac, that these "in popular culture" articles are created in order to keep the main articles clean. Merging back is a bad idea, this material is only even here because it was unwanted at the main article. Note the entire category Category:Norse mythology in popular culture: this was created because game designers etc. will insist on naming random characters after Norse mythology, and the kids playing these games will insist on adding that to Wikipedia. The "in popular culture" categories serve the important function of discharging that without a lot of fuss. If you want to be strict about that, you will spend your days on AfD getting rid of them all. I don't see the point in that. If people want a repository for that sort of cruft, let them have it in list-like articles out of harm's way. I am not going to vote "keep", but I do think that a deletion campaign against these "in popular culture" articles is an ill-advised waste of time. dab (𒁳) 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are substantial and verifiable sources that one notable piece of art is significantly influenced by another notable piece of art, I think that information does belong in one or both of the articles for those pieces of art. None of the items on this particular list seem to be sourced in any way, and so it should be deleted. Information either meets Wikipedia's standards or it doesn't, and if it does not, then moving it somewhere else may improve the article where it originated, but it does nothing to improve Wikipedia as a whole. I don't agree with the position that Wikipedia should have one set of good articles that meet its standards, and another set of bad articles that don't meet its standards. Propaniac 13:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * not quite. A factoid that is undue on one article may be alright on another, depending on its relevance relative to the article subject (think Pokemon test). The question here seems to be "do we want 'in popular culture' articles at all?" since this discussion is in no way about Yeats in particular. I see no point in deleting the Yeats article but not the dozens of similar ones. What you want to do is strike up a general discussion about this on WP:VP. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back then prune. Bulldog123 13:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT. Also, do not call Sandy a noob. If the information was removed from the main article for FA concerns then all of the content is inappropriate for the article. Merging is not to be performed if it will negatively impact the target article. Loss of FA status would definitely be a negative impact. Jay32183 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back - Some of this is good and relevant information and would be beneficial to the Yeats pages (and hopefully sourced) but should be trimmed down. Statisticalregression 20:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to W. B. Yeats. Giggy  UCP 22:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to those saying merge This content was removed from the main article for a very good reason, none of it belongs there. The problem is that the information was forked into a new article rather than simply deleted as it should have been. When dealing with an article that fails WP:NOT merging it doesn't solve the problem, shortening it doesn't solve the problem, and reformatting it doesn't solve the problem. If you want to write about W. B. Yeats in popular culture then do so with sourced analysis, not just things that refer to W. B. Yeats. Use secondary sources that analyze the fiction, and only reliable sources. None of the current information allows for the type of writing to which I refer, and merging any of it will only burden the main article. Jay32183 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, refactor and rewrite. Yeats was a significant and influential poet, whose impact on the culture and society of 20th century was profound: if Wikipedia is not a broad enough church to understand something as simple as that then in my view the entire project is doomed ultimately to failure. There is, beyond what currently exists, a major article here, and randomly deleting it at the point at which a body of the base of it has been demerged from the main page seems laughable. Wikipedia is NOT paper. Moreover Wikipedia is very much a work in progress. Delete this one and I can nominate you 30, maybe 50k, articles altogether more appropriate for deletion on grounds of notability alone (let alone those that should be excised with ruthlessness on the grounds of quality, style or content, or the sheer and vacuous idiocy of their contents). This is one page which should stay and which should be refactored and comprehensively rewritten. Sjc 04:56, 24 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.