Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground 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. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

London Underground in popular culture[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another day, another terrible TVTropic list that violates oh take your pick from WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Also WP:V, given much of it is unreferenced. The list includes plenty of works in which the Underground plays a minor role (ex. the unreferenced claim that "The Good Shepherd (2006) and Atonement (2007) include scenes shot at Aldwych.") The only prose section is about legends, and we can consider merging it, but it's almost entirely referenced to rather unreliable looking website http://www.ghost-story.co.uk/index.php/haunted-houses/276-london-underground-ghosts-london-england so there's that. I am not not sure if anything can be rescued here for merger back to London_Underground#In_popular_culture, which is not much better, either. PS. My BEFORE did find sources like [1], and overall suggests that the topic is actually notable, but the article likely would need to be written from scratch, so WP:TNT applies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this giant list per WP:TNT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The main London Underground article already has a small prose section discussing its presence in pop culture and describing the popularity of filming there, and none of this massive list of non-notable trivia would be appropriate to merge over there. Rorshacma (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. XtraJovial (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is little more than an indiscriminate collection of trivia. At best, it would need to be destroyed and rebuilt. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It does just seem to be a collection of trivia and as such does not really belong on Wikipedia. As said the popular culture section at the main article can cover the subject adequately. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could be fixed by renaming it to London Underground in film and media, removing anything that is not film and media, reducing it to a list with no explanation of the London Underground's significance to each film, and removing most of the references. Then it would be just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blenheim Palace in film and media. It's also more useful than London Underground#In popular culture, which has nothing before 1978, only one film before 1996, and no explanation of the Underground's significance to the plot of any film - it looks like the selection is based on them being well known films. The section also mentions "fictitious stations" but doesn't specify films, or even whether they were filmed on the Underground. A865 (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me at "removing mot references" when it comes to improving the article. Does. Not. Compute. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 17 April 2022 (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.