Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep - Carlossuarez46's argument shows convincingly that this is not a trivial article nor a loose collection of unrelated information, further comments reflect that as well. In a poorly written state, such things may be hard to discern (no doubt!) but there are at least promises to rework the article to address any remaining concerns. Cheers, Wily D 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

List of trivial appearances, with no greater context, unacceptable per WP:FIVE ("Wikipedia is not a trivia collection") and WP:NOT Eyrian 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a directory of loosely associated items that is already covered in a multitude of other articles in Category:Sherlock Holmes. Holmes is unquestionably a notable and iconic character. That does not mean that a list of every mention of Holmes gathered into a pile is worthwhile. None of the keep arguments in the last AFD hold up under scrutiny. Otto4711 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes is just a trivia article. In fact, if he's that popular, such info should at best be briefly merged to the influence section of Sherlock Holmes.--Kylohk 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Lots of nonsense as well, the article claims Fox Mulder, Jessica Fletcher, Philip Marlowe, and just about every other fictional detective in history were based on Holmes. Saikokira 02:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, WP:NOT. Eusebeus 11:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced collection of indiscriminate info. Sherlock Holmes, though obviously noteworthy and depicted and mentioned often enough in various forms of media, should not be the subject of trivial listcruft.  Any important adaptations should be moved to the main article with the blanket "Holmes is important in popular culture, etc etc" explanation.  Other than that, 99% of this list is unencyclopedic.  In short, if his name is merely mentioned in passing in some book or TV show somewhere, it doesn't belong.  Anywhere. María ( críticame ) 12:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Sad, because Sherlock Holmes really has become a pop culture figure and so many of us Conan Doyle fans have watched as later authors attempt to make their own Holmes and Watson stories. Instead, it's the laundry list, and the idea that every later detective, from Herucle Poirot to Adrian Monk, is a spinoff of Holmes-- that's insulting.  Mandsford 23:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don;t think its quite as hopeless as that. True, there is what is even for these lists a large amount of really slight allusions. But they can be removed. I've removed the ones about which I feel confident. I think what remains can in general be sourced. Since it will take much much longer to properly source this and the similar articles than it did to nominate them, I would think it a sign of good faith to withdraw these nominations for a n appropriate time. Even manually, anyone could file one of these in two minutes or so--it would one person possibly many hours to source a single article. That's 100:1 or so. DGG (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As a challenge to myself, I decided to see what I could do in two minutes, literally. I added one famous book (which I've actually read) and one article that appears on point as general references. Google Scholar alone has 945 more. That will take the several days - or it appear, weeks-- to sort out. there is that much material. DGG (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should Delete the list, create the article Influence of Sherlock Holmes stories on popular culture, and write an ARTICLE, not a list. I assure you that none of those Google scholar articles will just be a laundry list of places were Holmes has popped up. CaveatLectorTalk 03:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I appreciate your efforts, DGG. A good article about Sherlock Holmes could be created, and this isn't a "Delete and Salt" type of thing; I'd like to assist in the edit process.  I think that delete will probably win out on this one, but nothing to stop us from saving your improved version to our own computers.  Mandsford 12:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this is an exception to the normal delete of pop culture artilces, because the phenomenon of Holmes in popular culture is itself the subject of discussion and coverage by reliable sources, e.g., National Public Radio (US), A book entitled The Baker Street Reader: Cornerstone Writings About Sherlock Holmes (Contributions to the Study of Popular Culture), and University of Minnesota library. This subject differs from the huge number of "in popular culture" subjects which can never be more than a list of cross-references to the "icon". Here, the phenomenon itself is notable. The article, in its current state, is very much like many we have deleted; but unlike those, this may yet be a great article because it is a notable subject - it ought to be improved rather than deleted. Carlossuarez46 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and Carlossuarez46. Two solid references, notable as per opponents, and not too crufty.  Bearian 21:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carlossuarez46's and Bearian's points.Number36 05:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the above points for retention. I would also add two other points; firstly Holmes does appear just about everywhere and secondly this page is the only way to keep on top of the amount of rubbish tagged onto the main article.  People get annoyed when you remove their cherished addition about a Holmes appearance they read in a comic.  Needs work, not deletion. Pydos 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carlossuarez46 and the WP:CONSENSUS of about a couple dozen editors who contributed to this article. DHowell 18:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT Jay32183 23:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rework per Carlossuarez46. There's a solid article to be written on this topic, and some of the requisite content is in the page as it exists.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 August 2007 (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.