Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FN P90 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90 in popular culture[edit]

Listcruft. A list of every single time a particular object (in this case, a firearm) has appeared in any piece of fiction, no matter how minor that appearance. As such, this is an arbitrary list that cannot ever be complete, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT and the deletion policy.

The introduction is the only vaguely encyclopedic part of this article, and that text already appears in FN P90 (the article this was split from, so no merge is necessary). As merging this into FN P90 would be to the detriment of that article, this article needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopaedic list; there appears to be no research value to the page, as it could grow to be huge without ever being complete. (aeropagitica) 08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question Over the last couple of months, entries on popular firearm articles listing popular culture (game, movie) appearances have gone from minimal to common and voluminous. I am beginning to feel that a formal policy discussion needs to be held regarding how much of that sort of info is appropriate; right now, I know of no WP standards on the matter, and I fear creeping listitis will overwhelm many articles' other content. Feedback here or my talk page on where this sort of discussion should/can be held to try and get a consensus, or info about similar policies elsewhere, appreciated. Georgewilliamherbert 08:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page seems to me to be noteworthy, if the items of fiction listed are noteworthy. If the FN P90 is iconic, then examples of its iconicness seem to me to be noteworthy. Anthony Appleyard 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List is encyclopedic, as there is discussion on how the use is notable, and how use of the FN P90 is iconic and seperate from the majority of firearms. Unencylopedic entries should be removed from the list to improve the article as a whole, but this is not grounds to remove the whole article. --Barberio 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nc e Ong 14:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep worthy of an article. Bobby1011 15:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; nonencyclopedic, unverified and in many ways unverifiable. Isn't deciding which appearances are "authentic" and which may be lookalikes original research? Monicasdude 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no P-90 lookalikes. There are airsoft pellet gun replicas, and stage gun blank firing props, but no other actual firearm looks anything like a P-90. The list given merely lists what name the weapon was used under in the movie/game in question, which is often not "P-90" for reasons of fictional license. Georgewilliamherbert 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with comment the pop culture content is a stain on Wikipedia, that much I agree with. However, pages like this are necessary - to delete them is to court disaster. I hope I need not remind MiB of the furious arguments and revert wars (Talk:FN P90) that occurred the last time we tried to do this. For those who don't know, all the cruft formerly quarantined on the Pop Culture page ended up spilling over into the serious article at FN P90. It required careful monitoring and maintenance as a result. People from both sides of the argument would revert constantly, and it took weeks to stabilize the situation. Let's not open the flood gates again. --Tronno (talk | contribs) 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopædic, WP:NG Avi 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as the list is fairly fairly sizeable and has some good detail, as this one does, then I think its worthy of keeping. --O.F.Fascist 22:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are standardized and relevant part of firearm articles. Many firearms do not have any film/game use at all, so the ones that do are especially notable among firearms. When these sections get to long, they are moved to a sub-page such as this. Ve3 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is interesting to read about, and many other firearms have their own sections in popular culture Aznfurball 05:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the firearm had a noticable effect in popular culture, there's no doubt that the topic is worthy enough for a seperate article by itself. Besides, the content looks good too, I see no valid grounds for deletion. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 18:21, 19 February 2006 (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.