Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qilin 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 merge to Qilin. Without prejudice from recreating if size considerations of the main Qilin article ask for a spinout. This is, in fact, no different than a keep close, with a consensus to merge the articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qilin in popular culture

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bog standard in popular culture article, full of trivia, thin on secondary sources. Tagged for merge but I see no reason to do so. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, has survived AfD before. Too long to be adequately covered in the parent article, so best as a breakout article per WP:IPC. Nominator fails to advance any reason for deletion that is both accurate and policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Showing how a notable aspect of history/fiction has appeared throughout various cultures over the centuries, is very encyclopedic. Dream Focus 15:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most "in popular culture" articles, this is just a mismash of trivia without a central, notable topic. Perhaps a concise, prose article can be written on this topic, but what we have would need to be completely rewritten, eliminating the trivial passing mentions (which make up the entire article) and summarising the topic's reception in third-party sources (as we do for all non-IPC articles). Since none of the sources actively discuss "Qilin in popular culture" as a subject, this was created without evidence of notability which lead to (surprise, surprise!) an article filled with original research. A merge is inappropriate because the material here doesn't belong in any one single article, keeping this is inappropriate because it isn't encyclopedic. Deletion is the best route to go. Them From Space 17:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the sources have to say the words "popular culture"? You can look at the article for popular culture and by that clear definition, decide if these things obviously fit into that classification or not. Dream Focus 23:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The main article lacks a popular culture section; this material would work fine there. List seems to lack notability for its own article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Nwlaw63. This information is more suited to the context of a larger article than as a stand-alone. - Jorgath (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the referenced entries per the WP:PRESERVE editing policy. The Qilin article is short enough to not need a split. Diego (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you saying merge, what would be merged? It wouldn't all fit over there. Dream Focus 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The referenced entries, which seem to be everything (all have either a reference or a wikilink to an article). I don't see why they wouldn't fit. Diego (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge referenced and verified information to a new "In popular culture" section in the Qilin article. This would WP:PRESERVE valid information and also expand the Qilin article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: There's a recent precedent of a wp:spinoff being merged back into the parent article, without prejudice of splitting again based on content size. This could be a good solution for this. Diego (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: should be merged into the main article as it lacks a popular culture section, there's a good chance for the main article to be expanded through this around the modern usage. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2012 (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.