AnotherSearcher
Perhaps you should give WP:TRIVIA a read too, as it clearly states that "...in popular culture" sections are discouraged since they are meaningless collections of unrelated facts. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I read it carefully... and I think more carefully than you... it says a "meaningless collection of unrelated facts...". The facts you removed were NOT meaningless (only in your opinion) and they were not unrelated. They all dealt with how public interest in Paris has resulted in her being repeatedly and continually lampooned in popular media. THAT is an important issue. Those were the instances in the section. There was no collection of unrelated facts. the WP:TRIVIA also tries to stave off heavy-handed editing like yours by saying "Such sections should not be categorically removed". Did you miss that? It also says "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections"... which you did when you removed instances of parody because you felt they were unimportant. By removing them, you removed the cohesive context of the article dealing with examples of Paris being lampooned. Without them, the article makes less sense and has less importance. AnotherSearcher (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Omovies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)