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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constellations in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article also contains a trivia list which is unreferenced once again. Delete per WP:TRIVIA and WP:V JForget 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge relevant info to Constellation Giggy _U^CP 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Ursa Merger anything relevant into the articles about individual constellations, assuming there is anything relevant. Thus, Cassiopeia trivia can go with Cassiopeia. As Bill Engvall said, "Here's your sign." Mandsford 00:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is pure trivia. I also dont think the other article about astronomy should be filled with this trivia Corpx 01:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an endless unmaintainable list of trivia. Anything approaching a complete list of references to one constellation or another would result in a list tens or hundreds of thousands of entries long which would be absolutely worthless in increasing anyone's understanding of constellations. Otto4711 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into individual constellations, while entries are worthy as they demonstrate cultural significance of parent article it is possible to incorporate this into individual articles Guycalledryan 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge - yes that's not easy - some of the stuff might be includable in the constellation articles (much as we'd include films, books, and other fiction "set" in places in those places' articles). Some of the content is just inspiration of name: calling some starship after some constellation, to which level of detail (or trivia, in the eyes of detractors) we wouldn't go in earthly places articles. More leeway is probably allowable in constellation articles because, although they have scientific definition and relevance today, as refelcted in our artices, most of their origins were in myth, fiction, or (gulp) the popular culture of long ago. Carlossuarez46 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would support merging if this material was referenced. However, since it is not referenced, it has little value at the moment. It would be better just to start over. Dr. Submillimeter 19:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Dr. Submillimeter wholeheartedly. Vsst 01:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There aren't any sources to verify that all this is true. Furthermore, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which this article clearly is. I also fail to see how this enhances the Constellations article. (O - RLY?) 02:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge useful content to constellation and delete random trivia. Shyamal 06:34, 19 July 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.