Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Whitman 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. Sr 13 05:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Whitman in popular culture[edit]

Trivia collection, composed of bare-mention references. Gives no further understanding of Whitman or his influence. Eyrian 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong delete as a pure trivia list, just like all the other "in popular culture" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per TenPoundHammer. --Malcolmxl5 20:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - It is only a list of facts and nothing more. WP:TRIVIA → Hot Dog Wolf 20:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#INFO; it seems that any cultural reference to Whitman, whether it be the man or his works, is fair game in this unsourced list of indiscriminate info. It's also riddled with OR and POV, and although it may be cleaned up, it's still unencyclopedic trivia. María (críticame) 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What else I have to say like in previous AFD's, same flaws as the others.--JForget 22:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't think much of arguments that don't discuss the particular article-they amount to saying delete this article because all such articles should be deleted, without giving any specific reason why this article falls within the class. To delete the article it is necessary to show that all of the contents are so totally trivial that none of it can be rescued by editing, and that the article can not be used as a base for a better article on the subject. The nom and some of the comments do at least show they know what the article is about. I suggest the closing admin regard "all such" arguments as if they were made by bots. DGG (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd ask the closing admin to treat this as the an assumption of bad faith that it is. I, myself, use the 'all such...' argument because I tired of repeating myself of the various reasons why these lists should be deleted, since they are almost always for the same reasons. What can I or any other editor possibly do in this case? Perhaps those who wish to keep the articles should cite something from them or make some argument as to how they can be turned into good articles (I have done this very thing with several of them) CaveatLector^Talk 06:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of the weaker "...in popular culture" trivia lists I've seen, which is not encouraging. Most of the references are passing references, and the few that might be notable (the play; the plot device in Dead Poet's Society; the Ginsberg reference; the Bernstein "Songfest" reference, whose link is to an unrelated article) are not worthy of a separate article. (The play doesn't even have an entry of its own in Wikipedia, which suggests it's non-notable; the mention of it here is even less so.) To top it off, only one of the items is sourced, and it is a preposterous entry about a non-notable band that took his name. So what? (The reference for that is to MySpace, which is a pretty good indication of the total uselessness of this article; the only reference on the page is a MySpace link.) Delete this; find some sources for some of the more relevant stuff and add it to the main Walt Whitman article. Horologium t-c 23:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how lines somebody reciting lines from his works is in any makes the case for a popular culture article Corpx 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unstructured trivia, and not worth structuring. Golfcam 23:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Say what you will about Dungeons & Dragons, Cockatrices, the Four Horsemen, mermaids, Ring a Ring O'Roses, Vikings, the seven deadly sins, the Spear of Destiny, Judas Iscariot, pufferfish, comets, Isis, rayguns, Gehenna, the infinite monkey theorem, marionettes, tarot cards, incest, the Son of Sam, airships, Ambrose Bierce, Ludwig Van Beethoven, Johannes Brahms, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, The Four Seasons, Goldberg variations, Für Elise, Mozart's Requiem or Wyverns in popular culture. I agree with the nominator on this one. It doesn't add anything to Walt Whitman's achievements. Author is too young to remember that the ABC television series Room 222 was set at "Walt Whitman High School". Mandsford 00:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TRIVIA. IPSOS (talk) 23:16, 29 July 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.