Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to The Wiggles

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to The Wiggles

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

Sources are primary, IMDB, YouTube or otherwise unreliable. Adds nothing to the article. Nothing but a big laundry list of blatant trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, back when I was a greenhorn editor. (The Wiggles was the first article I lead through FAC. It was at one point a part of that article, and I thought I was Doing Good by splitting it off. I agree, though, that this article is inconsistent with WP's policies, so if you want to delete it, go right ahead, knock yerself out, I give you my blessings. ;) Christine (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as much as this seems a dumb topic, it does appear to meet WP:IPC. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. A few of the listed items might be overly trivial but others are significant enough (and sourced). --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is pretty trivial Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- trivial list is trivial. It fails WP:N through lack of substantial, reliable coverage (what we have is an article congealed from many passing mentions, which puts it well and truly in WP:SYNTH territory as well). Furthermore, WP:IPC is an essay with no force at all. But let's suppose for the sake of argument that it was a guideline. This article actually fails it. Let me explain:

"(In popular culture sections) should be verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader."- only borderline verifiable and of no interest to the reader.
"Detailing a topic's impact upon popular culture can be a worthwhile contribution to an article"- sure, but contextless passing mentions do not even approach that
"When poorly written or poorly maintained, however, these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft."- FAIL

Reyk _YO! 01:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that references have occurred is not enough on its own to justify an article like this. These references have not given rise to any substantial commentary about anything. In other words, there's no evidence that this might pass the threshold of WP:N. Mango juice^talk 17:21, 8 November 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.