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 by clear consensus. In the end, it came down to this: if this were any kind of referenced, detailed analysis of the impact Bruce Lee had on different cultures around the world in different decades and years, that would be one thing, but that's not what this article is. Instead, it's a hodge-podge list, no doubt incomplete, of various times his name has been mentioned on TV or film or print. It's not educational, it's not helpful, and it's not encyclopedic. KrakatoaKatie 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lee and popular culture[edit]

Bruce Lee and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A cluttered trivial list that seems poorly sourced as well. Sourcing can be fixed: but overall this type of list isn't very useful. A list of very random mention isn't notable. Perhaps this would be better at a Bruce Lee wiki (if one exists) ? RobJ1981 19:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as indiscriminate collection of information in a loosely-associated list. Useight 20:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, another culturecurft list. Realkyhick 22:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ok, Bruce Lee has been mentioned in some movies, it doesn't mean there needs to be listcruftic page about it. Dannycali 22:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More trivia-ish only article.--JForget 23:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per loosely associated topics/trivia Corpx 06:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was expanded from a section of Bruce Lee article. If this article is deleted, then such "trivia" information would start to pop up eventually on main Bruce Lee article. --RockyMM 17:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping junk off the main page is not a reason to keep this so-called article. Dannycali 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the argument given for deletion are : a/ not useful--irrelevant, we provide information, not practical advice. b/ 'cluttered" I interpret that as meaning contains a good deal of content, I fail to see how the organization or lack of it in an article is a reason for deletion. c/ "poorly sourced" but the nom. admits it can be fixed. d/ "trivial" -- anyone can say that about anything -- it will be trivial to some people and not others, so it amounts to IDONTLIKEIT e/ "very random mentions" either that means a desire for more complete content, or a statement that some of the information is more important than others, both editing questions.DGG (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK... so what's your argument for keeping the article. ILIKEIT? You don't give any rationale whatsoever. -- Kicking222 02:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't personally like it, actually. I couldn't care less about BL, or about the part of popular culture influenced by his work. I'm one of the unenlightened who have never actually seen his films, and hope to never see one. But I know the many articles in WP on them show how they are important to many WPedians and that they are within our scope. So WP should cover them, and the significant things about them. The significant things about a movie include the references to other films. (and similarly for other media), and their reception by the public. Their importance is shown by their mention in reviews--which do have to be added--or do you truly doubt reviews compare with other films? Things of significance in the world are encyclopedic if there is enough information to write an article. WP is a general encyclopedia covering what I like and what I dont like. And if you want to see how I apply this to things I know about more, look at the other AfDs. There have been more than enough of them and I've said enough too, more than should have been necessary. The deletors repeat the same arguments each time--does that mean I should paste in the same words also? I am not responsible for adding all the necessary content to WP, so dont suggest i must do so. But I have do feel a certain responsibility to try to prevent wanton destruction. DGG (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what does it matter to all those sayin delete if this part of bruce lee is kept it doesnt affet you and hell i found it to be really good and interesting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.249.8 (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bunch of unrelated, unnecessary, non-notable trivia. If this was an article about Bruce Lee's actual impact on pop culture, then we'd be looking at a different issue. But this is simply a loose collection of characters that have some of Lee's qualities and films that mention him. That's not the type of article we need on WP, and I'd argue that there is absolutely nothing (or, at least, next-to-nothing) that would even be worth merging into his main article. -- Kicking222 02:22, 1 September 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.