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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor and trivial references, no criteria for inclusion. Excessive, trivia, listcruft, etc. etc. Last AFD resulted in keep mainly on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "the Eiffel Tower is notable, so every single reference to it must be listed." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA, with no prejudice against the creation of an encyclopaedic article on the Cultural impact of the Eiffel tower, which is a notable topic. x in popular culture articles are innately unencyclopaedic. Claritas § 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:TRIVIA does not seem a valid argument for deletion here. In fact, the section titled "Not all list sections are trivia sections" explicitly states that only lists that are disorganized and "unselective" are trivia. However, information here is organized, both by date and by theme. It is also selective in that the Eiffel tower is the narrow theme. Moreover, this does not actually fall under any of the six types listed in WP:IINFO. The headings may seem to describe this article somewhat, but the description that follows those headings does not match the article. —CodeHydro 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information in Eiffel Tower#In popular culture. In there is no useful information the Delete. Derild 49 21 ☼
Weak Keep The article needs references, but the article also confirms that the Eiffel Tower has a significant role in popular culture. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per claritas. collection of indiscriminate information not good enough for the Eiffel Tower article, and not good enough for WP in general. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. It is a meaningles list Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. If there are notable, covered-by-third-party-reliable-sources for some of these instances, then those could theoretically go into a Cultural Impact article. First Light (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how something notable has been seen throughout notable media over time is quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several world famous landmarks have "in popular culture articles" (Statue of Liberty in popular culture, Golden Gate Bridge in popular culture, Mount Rushmore in popular culture, The London Eye in popular culture, etc.) I don't see why this article is any different. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I share my views with TomCat4680. Eiffel Tower is an important landmark of modern France, and it is very essential to present its varied appearances in popular culture to give one idea about the importance and impact it had had over the years...Cupidcobra1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A minute or so's searching finds the book Famous works of art in popular culture: a reference guide by Lynda Joy Sperling (Greenwood Press, ISBN 9780313318085, 2003) which has a chapter on the precise topic of the article, and more sources such as this and this. A couple more minutes finds The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies by Roland Barthes (University of California Press, ISBN 9780520209824, 1997) a book largely devoted to this topic. Anyone who wants to spend a few more minutes looking for sources will be sure to find rich pickings here and here. I find it very difficult to believe that any editor with the slightest knowledge of Western culture and anything approaching a "clue-bat" wouldn't realise how obviously this is a notable topic. Of course the article is in a pretty sorry state, and I wish that this type of article would be named "in culture", because I don't see why we should exclude unpopular culture, but deletion certainly won't do anything to help build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per TomCat4680 --Korruski (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sourcing available for most of this, and there are no other valid objections. Phil Bridger's work here should serve as an answeer who think that because something is popular culture, nobody will find decent sources for it. Material covering uses in notable works is not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate would be if it covered everything in the world that mentioned it, and thids is or should be limited to material significant in things notable enough for a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing inherently wrong with the list, its shortcomings are due to it needing to be improved and edited. Someone another 23:13, 8 September 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.