Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lion King 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. --Core desat 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King in popular culture[edit]

This article is a directory of entries only loosely associated by the passing mention of The Lion King. It is essentially trivia, which should be avoided. Much of the content in the article is based on original research, and the existing sources only mention the appearance in passing, instead of providing significant coverage, per notability standards, to cover the topic. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as loosely associated trivia. Useight 21:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think maybe a handful of these may be relevant enough to hang onto, but then it wouldn't be enough to merit it's own wikipedia page.
Delete. Laundry list of every time a line or theme from the movie appears somewhere else. One or two of the "appearances" may be significant, but they are significant to their resident work, not to The Lion King. -- saberwyn 23:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list of thing which loosely connect to the Lion King. A "cameo" is not a cultural reference -- it's a cameo, and trivia to boot. --Haemo 23:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Lion King article--JForget 23:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This trivia was removed from the Lion King article in January; no need to return it. None of it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. --Charlene 05:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent; if there is anything worthwhile to merge to the article, it should already be there. Carlossuarez46 18:13, 29 June 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.