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 No consensus --JForget 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivia section recently spun out of an article about The London Eye, a large observation wheel in London and, since 1999, one of the most recognisable London landmarks. The article on the attraction itself is fine but this is just a list of scenes in books, television shows and films in which the Eye is seen or (rarely) is the setting. It seems that that's all it can ever be. Tony Sidaway 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could obviously be more than just a list of references. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. Significant uses of the Eye in PC (e.g. Doctor Who) can be recovered from the London Eye edit history and included as prose. Keeping this list or merging it back into the main article will just attract dorky "The Eye fleetingly appeared in the background of a television programme set in London" contributions. Brad (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a few exceptions this might well just be a list of movies shot in London. Ridernyc (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143 movies set in London versus about 10, so no, it is nothing like that. And movies are not the only entry in the article, hence the name change from the original section in the parent article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 90% of these appearances are trivial at best. Mention anything noteworthy in prose in London Eye. Lankiveil (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment from article creator Thoroughly pissed off. Most of this info was in the main article for a long time, and never attracted a prod, so why now, when the information is better presented, put in better context and added to, do people jump out of the woodwork to annihialate a good faith effort? Actions like this realy put me off contributing to WP. I formatted it preciely because you couldn't tell insignificant appearances from significant ones, but blease don't try and pretend all of the entries are insignificant, there are plenty more 'dorky' lists on WP. MickMacNee (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE above - Since you feel so strongly about this, and since the article has some (albeit marginal) merit, I'm changing my vote to Strongly Keep. On a side-note, after reviewing your talk page, you could stand to show more courtesy, and assume good faith regarding these things. :) Cheers. Alloranleon (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean London Overground, that conversation was between one user [1] who persists in remaining anonymous and is in constant conflict over rule-lawyering, against at least 3 established editors trying to improve that article for the better. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE aboveIt's just that your tone was a little confrontational. I mean no offense. :) Then again, he does seem to fully deserve it... Eternal apologies for ever doubting you, lol. Alloranleon (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no reason to delete given. Catchpole (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, remove others - the instances where major action takes place in or on the London Eye are worth keeping in the main article. Mere appearances on screen as part of the background do not need to be noted. Borderline cases can merely be mentioned in the other articles. Judicious care is needed to decide whether the information is needed, and if needed, where it is best presented. Ultimately, these deleted popular culture articles will be a valuable resource someday. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of unassociated items with no relationship to each other than happening to have this wheel in them in some way. The things on this list have nothing in common with each other and the presence of the wheel does not create an encyclopedic relationship. "The London Eye is in it" is not a theme. Regarding the comments from the article's creator, I am sorry that you put effort into creating this unencyclopedic article, but your effort is not relevant to the list's unsuitability. Neither does the existence of other "dorky" lists (and I note that this characterization of the work of others is surprisingly uncivil given your strong feelings about your own work) does not serve to justify the existence of this list. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, I did not create this content, it existed in the article attracting no Cfd attention until the second I spun it out in good faith. The dorky referenece is in reply to a comment above, so direct your civility comments elsewhere. Anyway, define encyclopoedic relationship - should the relevant listed articles not wikilink to the London Eye then? Lists of related wiki links are allowed under Wikipedia:NOT#_note-2. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question here isn't "is this material suitable for an article?" Much of it is suitable, in an appropriate form, in the article from which it was taken, The London Eye. But that doesn't mean that this encyclopedia necessarily needs articles solely on this subject. This is why I, being of the opinion that as a standalone article it's unlikely to contain anything beyond a list of appearances of the wheel in film, television and book, I propose that it should be deleted again (the material of course can all go back to the article, no problem). Show me that this article can expand and illuminate the wheel as a popular culture icon, and I'll change my mind. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the formatted and unformatted versions, I think now it is now too big to put back into the article as is (accepting that some entries might be considered unneccessary). There was also a specific comment on the talk page expressing concern that this section could conceivable be added to over time and overwhelm the main article, another factor in me deciding to spin it out. I can't show you how it can expand because I can't predict the edits other editors might think to make in future. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic better here than there argument. Editors who fear that trivial junk will get added to main articles and overwhelm them make the junk someone else's problem by spinning the junk off into its own article. The problem with this course of action is that if the material is junk in the main article it is every bit as much junk in its own article. Unfortunately, once it gets spun off instead of being dealt with within the article, it becomes that much harder to get rid of the junk because the junk article can't just be edited away the way that junk content within an article can. Spinning off junk makes the encyclopedia as a whole worse, not better. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TranswikitoThe Annex. Trivia articles like this would fit in better over there. *** Crotalus *** 03:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worse than IPC articles that have been deleted before. Actual use of the Eye as a major setting, e.g. Doctor Who or the Live 24 gig can be merged into prose Will(talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brad's and Will's reasonings. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well fuck it, I wonder where you all were while this information existed in the main article. I hope you will all be on the watchlist to ensure none of this information is added to the concise prose section you advocate, I doubt it though. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fairly iconic. I'd be really surprised if there weren't some cinematic article or book discussing this already. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:20, 7 January 2008 (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.
