Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

message: **Let me go off topic a bit: (will this also lead to a ban of any section header similar to "Trivia", "X in popular culture", "Cultural references in X", etc. that might appear in any article?) Probably not a ban, but a massive cutback is one of my wishes for Wikipedia in 2007. Those things are like a plague. Why an encyclopedia article needs a "Trivia" section is beyond me. Andrew Levine 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  response to Andrew (edit conflict)  OK - I am not saying that anything that appears in "X in popular culture" or "cultural references in X"  is by definition enormously valuable, but I think that by and large they are of value - likely not each item is valuable to each reader, but overall I'd say they add to the value of articles, and should not be lopped off as a class as you seem to be suggesting.  You've singled out some examples that you find lacking - and that is actually my point: entries should be looked at individually, not as a class - what we don't need is another situation where editors decide to lop off anything with a "trivia" heading or an "x in popular culture"-type heading, without individual evaluation, just because they have a pre-conceived notion about the "proper" length of an article or what constitutes notability.  As for spinning them off into  separate articles - I don't necessarily have a problem with that, if it's so long as to be unwieldy inside the article, provided the next step isn't to mark those new articles for deletion.  But most of the time those sections are not large enough to warrant separate articles, and are still reasonable to maintain in the main article.  Take items out, individually, if they are wrong, or libelous, or so insignificant as to be laughable, but don't come along and wholesale remove them.    As for my noting your POV - perhaps I didn't state that well. Of course POV is central to discussion, I did not mean to imply otherwise. Just keep it out of  application:  if an article has evolved in such a way that it includes a section like "The Bronx in the movies", or "the Watergate scandal in fiction", consider that its being there is telling the reader something about the impact that this borough and that historic event have had on the popular culture,  and that the editors who usually work on those particular pages have included it because they feel that it is making a contribution, and don't apply your POV that these sections should be removed by definition.    And finally, about intertextuality - my point is only that having such cross references is a well-established and valid means of analysis and evaluation, and not to be dismissed out of hand.  But one other thing - where in "Wikipedia's POV policy" does it "dictate that we not structure our articles a certain way just because a particular literary theory suggests it is a good idea"? NPOV is talking about content, not structure.  And anyway, as soon as you start saying things like "Wikipedia's POV policy dictates..", I  think you're losing sight of how things really are supposed to work around here.  Tvoz | talk 10:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: entries should be looked at individually, not as a class -- This is all that I ever wanted. Take items out, individually, if they are wrong, or libelous, or so insignificant as to be laughable, but don't come along and wholesale remove them. -- This is also all I argued for. How can someone read what I wrote and assume that I just want to get rid of everything indiscriminately? Andrew Levine 20:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because "massive cutback" didn't sound to me like individual examination, and you seem pretty clear that you don't think these should be here at all.  But we don't have to argue about this any more - we're probably closer in viewpoint than it might appear. Just a couple of days ago I chopped off the Eagles' trivia section because it was ridiculous - I gave reasons for each deletion, but in the end the whole section came out. So, I am indeed an inclusionist, but not blindly so.  Anyway, I'm, glad this nomination for deletion was withdrawn, because I want to believe that Wikipedia does not slavishly follow rules without regard for furthering the project and that, indeed, there is some room for fun.  I know some people on the other side of this page were appalled at the idea of wikipedia actually being enjoyable, but I would say to them happy new year and lighten up.  Happy new year to you too, Andrew, and to everyone else.  Tvoz | talk 00:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: moved from project page to reduce distraction