Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV in popular culture
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- MTV in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
A trivia article that violates WP:TRIVIA. Most of the points are just simply a quick mention of MTV in a song or television episode that is non-notable to MTV (and questionably notable to the episode or song). Most importantly, perhaps, the article is not sourced at all. It is just a collection of trivia and Wikipedia is not a trivia guide. Phydend 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An outstanding and well-sourced article could be written on the cultural impact of MTV. This is not it, is not close to being it and will never be it. Unsourced indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every mention of MTV in any medium regardless of how unimportant or transitory the reference. Otto4711 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but clean up: This article was originally part of MTV and was split into its own article because it got so long. A similar article, Jeopardy! in popular culture, was also nominated for deletion in the past. They decided to keep the article but clean it up, keeping only notable references. Something like that should be done here, instead of deleting everything in the article. --Samvscat 03:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but clean up per Samvscat Bulldog123 04:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - MTV has tons of references both small and big in culture. A lot should be cut out but what remains will be far too much to stay on the main article. Delete it and the people who like to add this crap will just shove it onto the main article again, and it'll just get split off again. Nominations for articles of this type are a complete of waste of time and out to be speedy kept just as a practical matter. DreamGuy 09:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - dozens of these articles have been deleted over the last several months because not everyone buys into the we have to keep it so the main article will stay pure style of argument. The way to handle this sort of garbage in an article is to delete it, not fork it off into its own garbage article and make it someone else's problem. Otto4711 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and most of those deletions were probably in error because of too many people buying into the "I'm too lazy to clean it up to make it a good article so I'll just delete the whole thing" argument. DreamGuy 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually, they were deleted because of the growing consensus that articles that consist of nothing but lists of "In this TV show, a character said Blah" are worthless and unencyclopedic, telling us nothing about Blah, the TV show where Blah was said or the world around us. In those rare instances where the articles were initally kept with the earnest pledge of editors to whip the articles into shape, weeks or months went by with nothing being done to the article and they were frequently re-nominated and deleted. Otto4711 17:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, textbook as per WP:TRIVIA. Having a list of every time MTV is mentioned on TV or radio is fancruft of the most odious variant. Lankiveil 10:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak Keep or Merge. MTV raised an entire generation (see The MTV Generation), affecting a large majority by becoming its own culture. However, it seems that every topic piece comes up with its own "x in popular culture" article, and honestly, there isn't too much importance laid on this article. Keeping it isn't a bad idea, as it isn't a waste of space, but it would be beter used in another article. Sens08 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't you mean the sociopathic rich kid reality show network? --Infrangible 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it does provide a list of notable items. Calwatch 07:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - what, specifically, is notable about, for example, In the film A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Rodney Eastman's character Joey is watching MTV just before he is attacked and murdered by Freddy Krueger? What does knowing that Joey was watching MTV as opposed to VH1 or pro wrestling or One Life to Live tell us about Joey or Freddy or the film or MTV or the real non-fictional world? Otto4711 17:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge back. Is there anything about MTV, at least in its current incarnation, that is not trivial? How can you tell? If this information was thought to occupy too much space in the article in chief, keeping it here is the right thing to do. If it is imagined that this information is too disorganized, the right thing to do would be to move it to a subpage of the talk page and post a link on the talk page, for the convenience of future editors. Data serventur et ruat caelum. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - references to something in "popular culture" are by their very nature unencyclopaedic. Don't even merge this stuff back into MTV. - fchd 17:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, no sources, will always be a list. Exists as a huge trivia article. daveh4h 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge pertinant information to MTV and let "them" trim it down to the bare essentials. Then redirect to there. We do not need a comprehensive list of every time someone mentions MTV on the television, or in films, books, newspapers, spring break vacation sites and trip reports, or in private family disputes over how the kid is "wasting time staring at the MTV all afternoon". --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 14:30, 21 May 2007 (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.