Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where's Waldo 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. Haemo, that kind of comment sounds like you meant to edit the article, surely, rather than ask someone else to? -Splash - tk 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Where's Waldo in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is just a list of mentions/spoofs of Where's Waldo. It's simply not encyclopedic. In most cases, these popular culture articles are spinoffs from the original article. Editors think it's alright to just move the cruft into a new article (instead of doing the correct thing, by condensing the section in the first place!). I'm really starting to think, there needs to be better policies in place about these articles. Wikipedia is flooded with them: Category: In popular culture, and it's a big issue. RobJ1981 00:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find Waldo, but I can find a lot of stuff in this article that proves that it's unencyclopaedic. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ozgod 00:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Waldo himself is pretty popular, and I think it could be cleaned up a bit, but it's not bad enough for deletion. Also, as a counter point to the nom, I'd prefer to have an extra page instead of one long one.  I just have a feeling this will turn into "Well x got this, so why doesn't y?" eventually. Whstchy 00:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - the content can be merged into Where's Waldo. — Wenli 01:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep. Nomination attempts to influence WP policy via the deletion process, as clearly noted in the nominator's rationale.  If the nominator disagrees with having "in popular culture" articles in Wikipedia, there are avenues of policy change that are more positive than the deletion process.  In the meantime, other valid and worthy examples are out there (please do not quote "othercrapexists"). Goldberg Variations in popular culture and Modern uses and adaptations of Little Red Riding Hood quickly come to mind.  If absolutely necessary, this article can be rewritten to better reflect the format of those articles.  I do agree that perhaps some of the more obscure items can be removed, but the page does not warrant deletion. --Roehl Sybing 02:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: After having reviewed WP:TRIVIA, I still believe that this page does not warrant deletion. Integration into the main article, perhaps, but not deletion. --Roehl Sybing 02:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And thus the split-AFD-merge-split-AFD-merge cycle, explained at "In popular culture" articles, is repeated yet again. Uncle G 09:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As many times as necessary. My opinion's not changing. --Roehl Sybing 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with a heavy reduction on the material. Many, many of our articles have Popular Culture sections, which I think is perfectly valid.  I always turn to Wikipedia first when I'm looking for this kind of info.  However, I would have turned to the Where's Waldo? article for the information.  If it were a topic with really significant representation in pop culture, then it might warrant it's own article.  But I don't think Where's Waldo? qualifies, so I say merge.   CharacterZero  |  Speak  04:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Purge eveything, and merge the scraps that remain. --Haemo 08:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The various listed items have nothing in common beyond someone decided to draw Waldo or have someone dress as Waldo in them. Oppose merger of any of it to the main article. Otto4711 13:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not see the reasoning behind having a "references in pop culture" article for any subject. Why is the branch needed? The list starts out small in the main article. Then more examples are added. As the list grows, it becomes too long. As a result a separate article is created to handle the plethora of new information. Now, there is a brand new article that deals solely with one aspect of the original article. Once that happens, all hell breaks loose. Suddenly even the most obscure of references are being included (i.e. There is an episode of Fairly Oddparents entitled "Where's Wanda)?" that actually have nothing to do with the subject matter. Such is the state of the article in question: obscure and unnecessary. I would not support merging any of this back into the orignal article, thus restarting the vicious cycle all over again. There is no need for this information. I cannot fathom a reason for wanting to know "There is a Friends episode where Ross is in a doctor's waiting room and helps a girl find 'Waldo' in her book" How will that ever be used? -- Cyrus      Andiron   15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - lists of references "in popular culture" are not encyclopaedic. Get rid of them all!. - fchd 17:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a glorified trivia section forked into it's own article. Other similar articles have been deleted.  Biggspowd 21:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Elrith 00:23, 23 May 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.