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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this, per WP:IAR or whatever might be appropriate. The nominator and the last delete-voter are each others' socks, and in my judgment this AfD would have been concluded very differently had it not been for the final "delete". One may accept DGG's argument or not, but an argument it is. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture[edit]

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of trivia and Wikipedia is not a repository of indiscriminate information. It doesn't offer any insight into Eliot's poem The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Nominated for deletion per WP:IPC, WP:ROC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:IPCEXAMPLES WP:TRIVIA and WP:HTRIVIA: (A) trivia articles should be avoided (B) this is a collection of trivia that is not important to the T.S. Eliot article or the Prufrock article, and offers no substantive insight into those topics (C) the material isn't substantive enough to include or integrate into either of those articles, (D) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". (E) There is no context, and it's largely a list of superficial "hey, someone wanted to look smart, so they quoted Eliot. nothing more, just a quote." --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC) ColonelHenry (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as nom. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the excellent and well-argued nominating statement. Can't add anything to the comprehensive nomination. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this minute there is time for decisions and revisions which a minute will not reverse. (That is, as quite adeptly argued above, delete.) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage: - Best delete vote ever. ;-) --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hardly encyclopedic. It's just a random collection of pop culture references better suited to TV Tropes than Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Only logical decision here. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When notable cultural artifacts, or particular distinctive human activities, are used as significant elements in notable fiction and other notable cultural phenomena, then a discussion of them is encyclopedic. All that is necessary is to show that the activity or artifact is used in a significant way, and this can be appropriately referenced to the work directly.

These references are needed, but they can be supplied. Any of the items that are not significant can be removed after discussion of the talk page of the article. Such a list is not indiscriminate, for it discriminates in 3 ways: the artifact, the notable work, and the significant use. Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. There is no problem with WP:V, for the items are attributable--if it is challenged in good faith that the artifact is not in the work mentioned, that does have to be demonstrated. There is no problem with LIST, because more than the bare facts are given. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate would be including every appearance whatsoever in any fictional work, however non-notable the work. But that is not the case here. Not for lack of trying. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonencyclopedic listcruft. Hierophant443 (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2013 (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.