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. - Mailer Diablo 22:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smilodon in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of loosely associated topics seeking to capture every appearance in every medium of an extinct tiger. Otto4711 14:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, definitely a list of loosely associated topics. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. (a) I'd rather not see this stuff repopulating the scientifically-focused Smilodon article again, and (b) there are sufficient appearances of Smilodon in the media to make this a viable topic. — RJH (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Better here than there is not a valid argument for keeping an article. Otto4711 04:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the correct way to deal with unencyclopedic trivia is to delete it, not fork it off into its own page. --Haemo 23:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per numerous other "In Popular Culture" lists that have appeared here recently. In this case, it's probably OR to assume that some of the appearances mentioned were actually Smilodons. - fchd 19:16, 21 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.