Talk:Sprites in popular culture

Should this article exist?

This article seems to be clutching at straws a bit. All the mentions of these sprites in popular culture are admittedly true, but I have serious doubts whether they require an article of their own. I honestly can't see the use in the purpose of this. Why would people want to see an article purely about times that sprites have appeared in popular culture?

I also feel that this should be merged into Sprite (creature). Both articles are about the same beings; this would easily fit within the other; both rely on each other to exist. The original author has complained about "shoehorning" and to me this implies squeezing them together. I think they would be better suited together and - as neither is particularly long - would easily fit this way. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a matter of topicality, not length. The articles on shoehorns and wedges aren't particularly long, and they could easily fit together. Shoehorns are wedges, but they don't belong in the same place. Popular culture articles have more in common with each other than the articles they've sprung from, and the list is considerably more cohesive with its fellows than with the original mythological article. It has the same sorts of straightforward literary allusions, anime appearances, and game bestiary entries that a dozen other IPC articles have.

As to this question "Why would people want to see an article purely about times that sprites have appeared in popular culture?", I really don't know why anyone would want to read any of them in the first place. I think they're actually write-only sections; people make sure their favorite work is mentioned, and never look at it again. But I haven't asked around. Mintrick (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like consensus has emerged here and I merged the article. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)