Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references to the Konami Code

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 with Konami_Code#Mentions_in_popular_culture (non-admin closure). SilkTork *^YES! 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop culture references to the Konami Code

I'm just going to afd, skipping prod. Like most WP:TRIVIA sections, this is basically a lot of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. If anything, merge into the Konami Code article, but I don't see this needing it's own discrete article. I would not recommend neither merge nor redirect Yngvarr (c) 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain people who seem to hold a strict dominion over the Konami Code page (see discussion for Konami Code). They have repeatedly deleted references from the Konami Code, including song lyrics and band names, but have left references that fit their own interests, such as comics. They also removed the bulleted list of references because they believed the page looked messy. As a compromise, I created this separate page, linked it to the original, and encouraged others to add to it. Ingridjames (talk)
- This kind of compromise is usually a bad idea; see Wikipedia:Handling trivia#Trivia articles. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot. I tried to find a guideline before creating the page, but I guess I didn't search for it correctly. It appears from the guideline that either a) this page is legit or b) the information shouldn't have been removed from the original page to begin with. Ingridjames (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can sympathize with Ingrid. I think we've all dealt with control freaks who put an article on their watchlist, and then make it their life's work to fend off any edits. Usually, the obsession is over something trivial. I recall that Konami Code survived a nomination for deletion, so that article isn't exactly on safe ground either. Often times, that type of jealous obsession that you describe shows that an article in being poorly maintained, and it can be a factor in the deletion process. Perhaps an adminsitrator decision to merge the content would serve to warn people that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And just to reaffirm what Mandsford says above, you might want to post a link to WP:OWN on the talk page. If there is little, or no discussion about this stuff, then there appears to be a greater issue at hand here. Yngvarr (c) 12:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely not notable. Deb (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been debated before, and the verdict was delete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_Konami_code_references_in_popular_culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.160.10 (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that we're already going in circles... I've added the link to the old AfD above. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: into the main article, which is not remotely too long to support this short list; I agree with Yngvarr that this looks a lot more like a WP:OWN issue than any other. Beyond that, though, what the hell? A pop culture section about a cheat code?? How much more trivial, non-notable and/or OR can you get? RGTraynor 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Konami Code, the article does not stand on its own. Even the Konami code is barely an article at this point. I also suggest the appearances in popular culture not be a bulleted list. It's not a disambig page. Integrate the information in to a well formed section such as "Impact on culture". AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Konami Code, which is not long enough to require a spinoff, even with this folded back into the batter. Agree with AtaruMoroboshi that prose would be better than a list, but that's a style issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for all the obvious reasons and those stated above. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 15:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Konami Code. Neither article stands up well on their own. The Konami Code article itself suffers from a lack of references and would benefit dramatically from having this content merged in. If anything, it would help to establish notability, as well as backing up verifiability. It also might be worth putting a note on the article page to inform editors that a merger is being suggested. Gazimoff (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the same reasons stated above. Combining the articles will lead to a better overall result. *** Crotalus *** 23:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (pasted from the last time this was up for deletion) Take a look at what the main Konami Code page [used to look like]. If we merge, this is what it's going to look like again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.45.45 (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.71.45.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An issue such as that should not be addressed in AFD, but rather on the article talk page. Editors can reach consensus on a reasonable amount of content to effectively illustrate the permeation in culture, but again, a talk page issue. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors haven't reached a consensus yet -- for years, the pop culture section grows and grows with references of dubious notability, then it gets cleared out all at once or moved to a separate article, then the cycle repeats. If we want to resolve this once and for all, we need clear notability criteria. --202.71.45.45 (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus because there is little or no discussion. The last discussion regarding pop culture was dated 16:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC). Ingridjames's last posting to try to open more discussion has been unanswered. Yngvarr (c) 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your ip make several unexplained edits with no edit summary to the main Konami Code article, you've also added a great bit of unsourced material to List of pop culture references to the Konami Code with out much discussion. Despite repeated requests to take issues to talk page you have not. In order for a process to work, you must respect it. Also, please see WP:NNC which states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles" If content can be verified with reliable sourced a representative sample of appearances in pop culture can easily be reached and that should not be decided in an AFD. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Ataru. Yes, I'm aware that constantly trimming out superficial pop culture refs is time-consuming and boring. It remains part of the cost of doing business here. RGTraynor 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so how do we decide which crappy bands that nobody has ever heard of get to go on the page? does digg.com have more precedence over gamespot? how about that wrestler nobody's ever heard of or that cartoon nobody's ever heard of?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.71.45.45 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP 202.71.45.45 added "that wrestler nobody's ever heard of" to the article along with "the cartoon nobody's ever heard of" in several edits at List of pop culture references to the Konami Code [1] If you question whether or not these items were notable, why did you insistently insert them into the article? Why not take to the article talk page and discuss, or simply not add them? It appears at odds with the fact that IP 202.71.45.45 has removed items from the main konami code article (again!)without discussion [2]AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge verifiable items into Konami Code. References in popular culture seem to be a significant aspect of the topic, but isn't substantial enough for its own article. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no benefit to a merge here, there is no encyclopedic value to this list. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.