usually notable enough to deserve a separate section. Shortcut WP:IPCVWP:IPCV "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with...
Click to read more »actually applies here. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Per WP:IPCV - "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged". I guess it might just...
Click to read more »same trivial content by various single-purpose accounts in violation of WP:IPCV, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTADVERT. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...
Click to read more »song, television show, or other cultural item." See also WP:NOTPLOT, WP:IPCV and this 2015 RFC on the topic. I find it very unlikely that most of the...
Click to read more »about a half dozen of them. GMGtalk 20:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I think WP:IPCV, and more specifically the RfC referenced in the footnote, makes it clear...
Click to read more »Nil🥝Talk 02:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Redirect. None of the content meets WP:IPCV. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Keep, passes WP:GNG with...
Click to read more »cultural item which merely mentions the subject." See also WP:NOTPLOT, WP:IPCV and this 2015 RFC on the topic Cakelot1 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »October 2024 (UTC) I'm mostly thinking of the arguments discussed at WP:IPCV. We wouldn't expect a book specifically written about Babylon 5 not to discuss...
Click to read more »Despite IP being told multiple times to review WP:IPCV and then being told explicitly that, per IPCV, they are required to provide a source, they have...
Click to read more »practical result? As far as concerns about the content, I would say that WP:IPCV and the associated RfC were a godsend as they provided bright-line guidance...
Click to read more »non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. We might look to WP:IPCV as a template for distinguishing between trivial and non-trivial coverage...
Click to read more »noted by third-party sources in any significant manner, as discussed at WP:IPCV. I suspect if the article does leave Draft it's going to need eyes on it...
Click to read more »flow of the paragraph. I wanted to revert the edit with the reason of WP:IPCV, but the user had also added an image to the section. I'm not certain about...
Click to read more »and the (brief) discussion on the talkpage, it looks like the "merge" of IPCV into NVIC was really just blanking and redirecting. Moreover, the content...
Click to read more »actually applies here. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Per WP:IPCV - "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged". I guess it might just...
Click to read more »about a half dozen of them. GMGtalk 20:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I think WP:IPCV, and more specifically the RfC referenced in the footnote, makes it clear...
Click to read more »song, television show, or other cultural item." See also WP:NOTPLOT, WP:IPCV and this 2015 RFC on the topic. I find it very unlikely that most of the...
Click to read more »cultural item which merely mentions the subject." See also WP:NOTPLOT, WP:IPCV and this 2015 RFC on the topic Cakelot1 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)...
Click to read more »a source that establishes some level of significance, as discussed at WP:IPCV. The text doesn't make it clear to me that his appearance on the album is...
Click to read more »worldcomp (tracks of worldcomp include: ERSA, PDPTA, BIOCOMP, SERP, ICAI, ICWN, IPCV, ... in case you wish to search for them in various databases such as DBLP)...
Click to read more »October 2024 (UTC) I'm mostly thinking of the arguments discussed at WP:IPCV. We wouldn't expect a book specifically written about Babylon 5 not to discuss...
Click to read more »Nil🥝Talk 02:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Redirect. None of the content meets WP:IPCV. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC) Keep, passes WP:GNG with...
Click to read more »non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. We might look to WP:IPCV as a template for distinguishing between trivial and non-trivial coverage...
Click to read more »sources that establish its significance to the article's subject from WP:IPCV; DFlhb (talk) 12:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Whether there should be "In popular...
Click to read more »question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC) For what it's worth, WP:IPCV already discusses the need for sources that establish significance, and while...
Click to read more »If this is about sourcing for "in popular culture"-style items, then WP:IPCV would seem to sufficiently cover the matter, including a footnote to the...
Click to read more »same trivial content by various single-purpose accounts in violation of WP:IPCV, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTADVERT. DonCalo (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)...
Click to read more »