Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes

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. Proto::► 10:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References to Calvin and Hobbes

Delete - an indiscriminate, largely unreferenced list of every time images that may or may not have been inspired by Calvin and Hobbes have appeared anywhere. Probably unverifiable, requires OR. Otto4711 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Calvin and Hobbes. Many of the entries on the list are unreferenced and therefore violate WP:NOR. Merge any useful/valid content, delete the rest. Walton monarchist89 13:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - good example of WP:NOT a pile of lists. — MrDolomite | Talk 15:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove all non notable, minor, references. The article should not be merged to Calvin and Hobbes (I'm quite certain it has been split off from it because the main article is already too long), but a list of major cultural works referencing C&H is a good way to show the impact and influence C&H have had (and still have). Remove the fluff that is more there to promote some non-notable work involved than anything else, and keep major things like Mad Magazine, the textbook, Far Side, or FoxTrot, if properly referenced. Fram 16:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think your !vote is a good illustration of what the problem is with this list and other similar lists. You want to keep the "major things" and get rid of the "fluff" but how is it determined what is "major" and what is "fluff"? Who makes that decision? Clearly everyone who entered an item on this list thinks that the item is important enough to be noted, so how can removing part of the list be justified without resorting to improper POV judgment calls? Otto4711 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That in my view is a matter for debate on the talk page of the article, not for bringing up here as a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 06:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that were so, it would not address the problems of 1) the inclusion of images which may or may not be C&H-inspired, requiring original research on the part of editors absent a specific reliable source that the image in question in in fact C&H-inspired, and 2) the fundamental lack of necessity for an article that seeks to capture every possible reference to C&H in every other medium ever without the slightest context as to why such references are themselves notable. Otto4711 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly violations of WP:V and WP:NOR. For the love of God, don't merge to the main article; it's featured and doesn't need this garbage. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Fram said. Mathmo ^Talk 06:23, 9 February 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.