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. BigDom (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

187 in popular culture[edit]

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

Essentially unreferenced (1 reference, out of 61 bullets, which really doesn't relate to what it's referencing) and utterly trivial list of mentions of "187" in various pop culture sources. Looks like it was created as a fork from 187 (number), but none of the stuff listed on this page justifies maintaining it as a separate list. There's really no need to create a redirect, as most people looking for stuff here are not going to type "187 in popular culture"; they'll simple type "187", follow the hat note, and find the equally overstuffed and unreferenced article on the number, which is not a candidate for deletion. I had tagged this as a prod last year, but it was quickly unprodded as "probably will be a controversial deletion-not suited for PROD". Horologium (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was created specifically to keep this stuff out of the 187 (murder) article (not 187 or 187 (number)) which was a magnet for this kind of trivia. I don't care if this is deleted, but know that this will just create problems for the 187 article again. See my comments at Talk:187 in popular culture. -- œ ^™ 02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd not looked at the murder article until seeing your comment, but the number article is cluttered with cruft similar to what is in this page. If this article is retained, someone is going to need to go through 187 (number) with an atomic-powered flamethrower to burn out the junk in that article. My personal preference would be to delete this article and scrub the cruft from the other article, but YMMV. Horologium (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love how H knew it was a fork of something, he just didn't know what... How much do WP:IDL something? If it is a lot, "I" may even employ the use of modern or even sci-fi weapons as an analogy for how "I" will remove it from Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more than listcruft. While I appreciate wanting to keep crap out of more legitimate articles, that doesn't lend credibility to this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. This doesn't need merging as it is pretty much unsourced. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is poorly named. 187 in popular culture ought to be about popular culture in 187, much like 1995 in literature is about literature in 1995. I suggest moving 187 (murder) to the more accurate California Penal Code Section 187 and deleting or merging this article. Pburka (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So true. People just can't get enough of the naming of Lucius Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna, as legate of Lyonnais in Gaul. Will there even be enough space in that article to contain all the references, I wonder? Debunked. Anarchangel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete I'm sick and tired of people saying "if you delete this terrible article this unsourced material will be put back into the other articles" To follow that kind of logic is to say we should abandon core wikipedia principles just to save a fight. If you have that attitude why not just let some of those difficult recurring people over at long term abuse have their way? it would save us the fight to allow them their way after all. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone shares your view that trivia sections and 'in pop culture' articles equate to a form of "abuse", much less being against "core wikipedia principles", there's a big difference, so your analogy fails. Some users feel these lists have worth, and there's precedence for splitting out similar lists from the main article once they start getting too long, see Category:Topics in popular culture for a whole slew of them. As for it being unsourced, these types of lists don't need conventional 'sources' as each item is itself a primary source: articles need to be verifiable right? So to verify whether the term appears in a particular cited song all one needs to do is listen to the song. Now, keeping it from collecting indescriminate listcruft is a different question. Some would say that citing secondary sources that quote the artist quoting the term is redundant, but at least it would keep out the non-notable stuff. -- œ ^™ 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that my analogy was referring to the idea of "well if this article gets deleted the cruft will be put back in the article" I think that's unnecessarily fatalistic to assume that unsourced material can never be removed from the wiki so we should find some sewer to dump it all in. It's akin to saying that if all a really difficult editor wants is to insert one persistent error (and that's what a good chunk of LTA is), we should let them. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete The fact that many songs & other material references California Penal Code 187 is worth noting in the 187 (murder) article, or its successor, but the entire list is listcruft. And it's also woefully incomplete, leaving out that Bobby Higginson and Mike Stanley each have 187 career home runs. :-) Ma^t_chups 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced original research does not belong. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppeteer -- œ ^™ 07:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It can all be checked up by looking up in the songs etc that each line quotes from. This seems to be a case of "one man's cruft/trivia is another man's important relevant matter". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anthony Appleyard. I will now pick 3 items at random from the article.

Simple statements of inclusion such as these can be cited easily, with a much lower standard of sourcing than for potentially disputable ones. Anarchangel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is nothing in our guidelines and policies which justifies a lower standard for citation as you state, and all three of the sources you have cited fail our sourcing guidelines, both for reliability (all three; the quotes section of IMDB is user-created and subjective) and for contributory copyright violation (all lyrics sites are massive copyright violators). Horologium (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, none of those sources directly support the claim that "187" is being used in reference to the California Penal Code or murder. You might infer that from the context of the lyrics or quotes, but that's WP:Original research. Pburka (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HominidMachinae. If nobody wants this trivia cruft in articles, then why in the world would we dedicate an entire article to it?!? Tavix | Talk 19:54, 16 April 2011 (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.