Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back to the Future 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future in popular culture

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

Article is unreferenced (save one notation about an episode of Fringe) and merely a laundry list of non-notable, sometimes one-line references in other media. Article is merely an indiscriminate collection of information. The article contains information such as "The Spanish band Delorean name themselves after the movies time travelling DMC-12", which may not entirely be true; just because a vehicle from DeLorean Motor Company appeared in Back to the Future doesn't necessarily mean that the band's name is a specific reference to the movie. Other trivial, non-specific/verifiable "references" include "Also in The Polar Express, the Hero Boy pulls the train's whistle and acknowledges that he's wanted to do that his whole life. This line was said by Doc Brown after he and Marty "borrow" the locomotive." Article survived one previous nomination on 21 March 2010 as a result of no consensus. Wikipedia:POPCULTURE provides an argument that pop culture references be included if they are verifiable, well-written and "contain facts of genuine interest" (not simply a laundry list of random notations) – none of which can be used as labels for this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the franchise article. Back to the Future introduced the now common trope of a time travelling car, and making out with your female parental unit (why is this in tortured English? blame edit filter 320 -- even though this activity happens in the film). 76.66.192.55 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:IPCA. Merging back in would be plausible but unnecessary--these entries can and should be sourced to the independent (of the films) primary sources in which they appear. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture reference sections/articles are welcome, but this particular article contains an incredibly excessive amount of trivial references to the point where it would be incredibly time consuming and cumbersome to weed them out. The article, should it be merged back into the franchise article, definitely needs to be pared down and have a lot of the bloat removed per WP:IPCA. A lot of the information in the article as it stands is very unnecessary. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mish-mash of trivial references, "this guy said something that was also said in BTTF" entries and "this thing looks like that thing" original research. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of trivia. We don't create articles by throwing together a hodgepodge of every instance when something appears as a namedrop. That is original research and unencyclopedic. I would vote to keep an article written in prose backed up by reliable sources that specifically discuss the cultural reception of a work in popular culture, but a trivia farm? Hell no. Them From Space 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the "article" is in violation of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. 24.217.235.226 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing can most probably be found for many of the entries, and if some entry is OR, it can (and should) be removed: since issues can be dealt with editing, deletion policy requires not to delete. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails WP:IPC which states: "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject". That's exactly what this is. It'll need a complete rewrite to bring it to WP:IPC standards. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:43, 21 July 2010 (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.