Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeti 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. I reckon the numerical vote to be only 12-to-7 for deletion, but arguments for deletion seem more consistent with policy in this case. In addition to NOT and TRIVIA, the article's poor focus condemns it to an irredeemable hodgepodge of original synthesis. Secondary sources about yeti in popular culture could probably correct this problem, but nothing suggests that such sources even exist&mdash;a fatal problem that puts the article on the far side of both WP:V and WP:N. Cool Hand Luke 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeti in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT Jay32183 01:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This seems to be "List of things named yeti or vaguely similar to yeti in the opinion of some unnamed editor." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete like most "[blank] in popular culture" articles, it is redundant and trivial. If any entry is truly noteworthy, then it should be in the main Yeti article in a "popular culture" section.  Pharmboy 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - so that this trivia doesn't get put back into the original article that I yanked it out of. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Better here than there is not a good argument for keeping. When you find inappropriate content in an article, delete it, don't spin it off on its own. Jay32183 03:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The Yetties, one Britain's longest running folk bands, are sadly not named after the abominable snowman, but after their home village, Yetminster in Dorset. That's the funniest line I've read in an In popular culture for a while, just for its total lack of connection with Yetis, other than sounding the same. Saikokira 03:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hey I wrote that! Fame at last :) Totnesmartin 18:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as non-notable WP:LISTCRUFT. Give me some reliable sources showing this list is somehow notable, then we'll talk. Spazure 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list seems to be interesting and notable enough.Biophys 06:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, feel free to edit the article to add references to the reliable sources that assert the notability of appearances of yetis in popular culture, so we can all agree. spazure  (contribs) 09:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Send the notable stuff to Yeti; delete the rest. Ichormosquito 07:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - List of times when ________ has appeared in TV/music etc = Trivia collection and loosely associated Corpx 16:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add references and text better indicating connections. --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete even though I contributed to it, these lists are just piles of cruft that nobody reads, they just get added to when the topic gets mentioned in Aqua Teen Hunger Force or whatever. they have a slight value in keeping such rubbish out of the main article, but the occasional tidying of said article should deal with that. Totnesmartin 18:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to a subpage of the talk page. The article in chief about Yeti would be inadequate if it failed to discuss yetis as they appear in movies, books, and films.  But this list is quite weedy. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT .. is there a precident and/or policy that agrees with this idea? Keeping the trivia without cluttering the mainspace with it seems a way to keep both viewpoints on the "in popular culture" lists happy. spazure  (contribs) 06:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BASH .. but there is in fact a guideline that supports exactly what I have proposed. On Subpages, it is written that temporary subpages in the Talk namespace are a permitted use of subpages, and I think they are a good idea for cleaning up these sections without forking them or troubling AfD over them.  Note also that we have Template:Workpage for just this purpose as well.  - Smerdis of Tlön 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * either Delete as primarily unverified trivia or prose-ify and merge with Yeti. VanTucky  (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! spazure  (contribs) 09:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

it's a rather detailed description about portrayals of a creature that nearly everyone believes to be fictional, and handles the subject well. If need be, merge into Yeti rather than delete. Author encouraged to save work, just in case. Mandsford 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this one could probably be merged, but based on recent practice that would be equivalent to delete, so it would be better to keep and edit. I'm glad to see a nomination which does at least say almost all trivia articles, not all trivia article. Progress is being made. DGG (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I nominated the article for deletion because there is no progress to be made. Outright deletion is the best thing to do. Shortening a collection of loosely associated topics does not make them not loosely associated topics. Jay32183 05:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. I second that all articles focused on the "popular culture" should be deleted. Once the focus becomes the present or what is popular an article automatically looses its cohesion. It becomes meaningless trivia. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Irredeemable. Hawkestone 16:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is not at all abominable; not yet irredemable
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's really the only place we could list cartoon Yetis like from the Warner Brothers cartoons and the Rankin-Bass Christmas specials. But I'm surprised the "Abominable Snowman" ( of the Ritts Puppets ) that was shown for years on public service ads isn't listed. Squidfryerchef 05:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BHTT isn't a valid delete rationale. spazure  (contribs) 06:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm suggesting a kind of converse of BHTT in this case. I think there ought to be some grouping of these fictional Yetis.  But because there are so many, it would just be a silly tangent to plop my particular favorites in the main Yeti article.  ( The usual BHTT argument would be "we don't really want this list, but its easier to move it into its own article than rewrite into encyclopedic prose" ). Squidfryerchef 06:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I see your point, and perhaps I was a bit too hasty to respond with BHTT. Nonetheless, I fail to see a policy-based rationale for keeping. Although my opinion may not be relevant on the larger scale, my delete reasoning isn't set in stone, so I'm open to other peoples' opinions. spazure  (contribs) 06:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The back story is, a while back I had flashed on that Yeti from the public service ads, and I'd planned to list it under "Yeti in popular culture". So, if this article gets deleted, there really isn't any place to put two sentences and a link about something, until I get enough material to write an article on the Ritts Puppets.  I'm more into an "Is this article good for Wikipedia" argument than trying to find a rule for it. Squidfryerchef 07:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. I'll politely oppose your opinion on this article, but I understand your rationale. WP:IGNORE exists for a reason, after all. spazure  (contribs) 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, unacceptable trivia collection. --Eyrian 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Yeti has proven to be a notable and recurring trend in popular culture and as such is a valid topic. - perfectblue 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is once more asserted that i the items are loosely associated only.To me, loosely associated means by some non-important characteristic. The characters in a creative work are important characteristics of it, and that a fictional character is a yeti is about as essential as one can get. DGG (talk) 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Two fictional works containing Yetis does not mean those two works are necessarily related, that's why this is being called a collection of loosely associated works. Jay32183 01:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment is this going to be the same argument that's been had already at Articles for deletion/Bigfoot in popular culture? Totnesmartin 08:54, 4 August 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.