Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln


 * 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 Clear Keep (non-admin closure). Mice never shop (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per a suggestion at Talk:Clyde Tolson. An indiscriminate and wholly-original synthesis, an accumulation of Lincoln sightings. No encyclopediac purpose for this list of "X in pop culture" to persist. If it were "Significant, influential depictions or references to Lincoln", it would be somewhat more disciminate. See In popular culture. Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe that a lists or articles such as this defy In popular culture, as such lists are "...verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader" and are easily supported by reliable sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Sorry, but the accumulation of referenced information does not become original research just because not everything comes from the same source, or because there might not be RS describing the topic with exactly the same parameters. WP:NOR refers to content, not choice of topics. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A topic might be true and verifiable and yet still of no encyclopediac value; a List of things I carry in my pocket is not a good topic for an encyclopedia, nor is the menu at the Stella's restaurant next door to my office. Neither is a list of "places the words "Abraham Lincoln" may have been wrtten down", which is virtually this list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This nomination seems to only have been made in order to make a point, as a response to a discussion at Talk:Clyde Tolson. This is not original research, nor is it an indiscriminate list, and it is referenced.
 * I object to the POINT characterization; there was a suggestion made at that talk page that a similar trivia list existed here that could be consiered for deletion. I'd be inconsistent if I argued for retention of one list of movie trivia over another. The number of references is beside the point; there's a million copies of the Kowloon municipal bus timetable, but that doesn't mean Bus schedule of Kowloon is a suitable encyclopedia topic.--Wtshymanski (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:IPC suggests that notable coverage in popular culture (as in where the subject plays an important part, more than just in passing) is reasonable grounds for inclusion. Unless Abraham Lincoln was just mentioned by a character, or was present only due to the setting, he has been an important part of the film/book/whatever. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to have non-Wikipedia references testifying to the significance of the appearance, otherwise we'll have editors saying that the Lincoln squirrel joke was the best part of that Simpsons episode. (I'm sure that's documented in many reliable sources, too.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that there are some entries in the article which are probably unnecessary; however, I do not believe that is sound reason for deletion. I would propose that the article is kept and then a discussion on the talk page initiated regarding any entries which should be removed. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article may need more references (not to mention conversion to prose format), but the concept is certainly encyclopedic. The changeability of depictions and perceptions of crucial figures in history is a sound, viable topic, and Abraham Lincoln is about as crucial as they come. Definitely not original research: see works like Lincoln, Inc.: Selling the Sixteenth President in Contemporary America by Jackie Hogan; Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory by Barry Schwartz; The Lincoln Enigma: The Changing Faces of an American Icon by Gabor Boritt; etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are several complete books written about this topic such as The faces of Abraham Lincoln: paintings, sculptures, drawings, and photomontages. The claim that the topic is original and indiscriminate is therefore false. Warden (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't like it, but I think it is sufficiently encyclopedic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per SteveStrummer Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. Can we restrict this list to *cited* significant appearances? Otherwise we'll be forced to include the list at the Simpons fansite which includes every time a $5 bill shows up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could we not keep it just to significant references? As I've said, the IPC essay provides useful criteria for determining what is significant, there's no need to try enforcing any additional bureaucratic criteria. Regardless, none of this is rationale for deleting the article. As you are now discussing how to improve the article, are we to assume that your position has changed? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment by nominator I'm still favoring deletion. The biggest improvement would be deletion. Since there seems to be no consensus on what criterion to use as a significant reference, this list veers toward an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't have to be that way, as List of fictional swords shows - if every appeaerance is required to have a reference to a reliable source. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think deletion ever counts as improvement to an article. I think that, if we are discussing how to improve the article, the deletion debate has become redundant. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but change title to Abraham Lincoln in popular culture. It's not very likely that someone looking for info about Lincoln in this context is going to begin their search term with "cultural depictions..." LATER: I see that Abraham Lincoln in popular culture already exists, as a redirect to this article. That is backwards. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.