Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peregrine Falcons in popular culture (2nd nomination)

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. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peregrine Falcons in popular culture[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminite collection of information. The list here is poorly referenced and most of the items within the list are nonnotable, for example: a fictional character who uses falcoms to murder opponents. Fails general notability requirements: show me one acceptable source discussing this list's topic "Peregrine falcons in popular culture", I highly doubt any exist. Themfromspace (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator said, this is just a list of random items. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very confident here: there is an article to be written on the subject (or something like the subject); and this was moved from the peregrine article, where there's now nothing. But what's there really is mostly trivia; and what might be worth keeping is unsourced. I'd say keep and improve. But that's what people said at the last AfD and it's still a bad article. N p holmes (talk) 06:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a couple of the entries here (like the first two I think) could probably be salvaged. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random and should just have been deleted in the first place. Punkmorten (talk) 08:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per items 1-4, 8, and 10 at WP:LC, as well as that all "in popular culture" articles are, in my opinion, inherently non-notable. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Random, arbitrary listcruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless listcruft. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a useful and discriminate collection of information and as all “in popular culture“ articles are inherently notable, but delete this discussion as AfDcruft.--63.3.1.130 (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to be more discursive and less a simple list. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N unless it can be shown that "Peregrine falcons in popular culture" is a topic that has received significant coverage in secondary sources. Deor (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems thorough and informative - not really cruft Redsolidarch (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redsolidarch (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep after removing the irrelevant items. Notable objects in notable works are sufficient for a list article. There is no requirement that there be works dealing with the subject of a list as a whole--that guideline is totally imaginary. DGG (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Are you saying that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic" doesn't apply to some class of articles that you choose not to have it apply to? What class would that be, exactly? Deor (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So that'll be a delete then, because the entire list is irrelevant? Stifle (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard work searching through the sources because there are so many of them - the peregrine is clearly iconic. I found a nice source for birds in general. This material should clearly be retained for further development and consideration of merges back into the main article and/or an article about birds in popular culture. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think that the stuff that's notable enough could be merged back into Peregrine Falcon, and the rest deleted. TallNapoleon (talk) 19:21, 27 September 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.