Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  08:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Yet another "x in pop culture" example that fails WP:NLIST. I couldn't find any other such list. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Anti-pop cult activists drive material off of the main page, forcing it to go to "X in pop cult" articles, and then nominate them for deletion, and all because the Wikipedia community sees value in this material and has steadfastly refused to outlaw them. As long as the material is sourced, it's a legit list article. Nom does not specify in what way the article fails NLIST, just waves their hands and says it is.  This amounts to nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I stated "I couldn't find any other such list." There is no consideration of it as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote "Yet another 'x in pop culture'" and "I couldn't find another such list". Which is it?  Are there myriad "x is pop culture" articles of which this is "yet another", or are there no other examples? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "reasoning" is beyond my ken. I can't make two points? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not when the two points directly contradict each other you can't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How do they contradict each other? There are many "x in pop culture" lists. I cannot find a specific Washington Heights list (the difference between "any other list" and "any other such list"). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What other kind of "in Washington Heights" list would you expect to find, and why? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * None, and that's why NLIST applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pop culture trivia, lack of notability. Most of the entries are passing mentions of Washington Heights, e.g. song lyrics mentioning it in a line or 'an episode of CSI was in Washington Heights'. Waxworker (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:LISTN:"One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Once again, we have no evidence of these being notable as a group. It doesn't matter that it's well sourced, that's irrelevant per LISTN. I also have concern that this list topic is just too specific/narrow. It only covers trivial pop culture mentions in a single neighborhood. Because of this, I also feel that it may be in violation of WP:SALAT. And because this list appears to just be a case of WP:IINFO, it's a violation of WP:CSC and WP:LISTCRIT.--🌀 Locomotive207 - talk  🌀  12:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Bruh. The only reason this was created was basically as a compromise between me and, basically I thought that the IPC section of the page should be trimmed down but he didn't and the compromise was to have an abridged version on the page and then the full version here. So I guess go ahead and delete it if you guys want but really I don't get what the point would be unless Wikipedia has some server space issues at the moment. I understand the motive for deleting pages on Wikipedia in general, if it didn't happen people could go around making whatever random pages they want. But this page fits into a pretty clear role, which is acting as an extended list for an abridged one in the main article, just as Category:People from Washington Heights, Manhattan does for the notable residents section. Because it fits a clear role, and is a page that as I said made sense to create in terms of preventing unnecessary edit conflicts, means to me that it should stay up. Not everything has to be uniform across Wikipedia, but it should make sense. So I'm not saying someone should go around to every neighborhood page making one of these IPC extension pages. But if a similar situation arises for a different neighborhood page where there is way too much info in the IPC section and resistance among certain editors to trimming it, then I think it imakes perfect sense for a page like this to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: Referenced information that is useful/interesting for readers. Lots of topics have separate "in popular culture" pages so there's no reason a neighborhood can't as well if editors feel the content is too lengthy for the main article. --Albany NY (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So your rationale is WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha I knew someone was going to say that. I specifically mentioned other pages because the nomination said "I couldn't find another such list." WP:USEFUL says "If reasons are given, 'usefulness' can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." So, let me elaborate. This is useful for finding out about works of culture depicting the neighborhood and seeing how they do so. Deletion of this page would result in a loss of this useful knowledge and hence be a disservice to readers. --Albany NY (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, as I stated above just now, "such list" refers to Washington Heights specifically, not pop culture lists in general. Also, USEFUL states, "Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless" (bolding as in USEFUL). "disservice to readers" is like saying it's useful because it's useful. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, Clarityfiend, it's not playing. Your made a contradictory statement, and now you're trying to Wikilawyer your way out of it. And even if I were to accept you explanation, what it amounts to is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.  The fact that there is no Skyscrapers in Washington Heights or Washington Heights in classical literature article does not means that the current article is not valid.  'Fess up, you just don't want popcult coverage on Wikipedia, and that's why you want to delete the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think that I would say something so stupid as I never saw any pop culture lists ever? Now who's contradicting yourself? Because you also claim that I hate lists that I've supposedly never seen before. This is all off-topic anyway. I don't particularly like lists like this, but I'm not on any crusade against them. Which is totally irrelevant in any case. Obfuscate much? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you would or would not "say something so stupid" is not for me to say. All I'm doing is pointing out the inherent contradiction in your earlier statements; as for me, I've said nothing whatsoever contradictory. I will point out that your comment "I don't particularly like lists like this" is an understatement, considering your history with them. There's no "obfuscation" in pointing out that (1) Your reasoning for nominating the article for deletion don't make sense, because they are contradictory, and (2) Your actual reasoning is something else entirely.  Those are entirely relevant considerations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - As mentioned already above, there do not appear any sources that discuss these entries as a group or set, or the concept of "Washington Heights in Popular Culture" as a whole, thus failing that portion of WP:LISTN. The actual entries are almost entire just pure trivia along the lines of "a scene of this show was filmed here" or "it was mentioned once in the lyrics of a song", many of which are not referenced to reliable, secondary sources.  The few reliable sources included do confirm that yes, a few of these entries definitely were set in the neighborhood, but none of them actually establish why the overarching concept of the topic of this list is notable, or why it would pass either the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just a reminder for everyone, that although there are editors who very much dislike Wikipedia covering pop culture references (not a cabal, just individual editors who really can't stand it), there has never been a community consensus that such material is outside the purview of the encyclopedia, and certainly never one that popcult stuff should be deleted wholesale. If popular culture material is properly referenced it is no different from any other referenced material, and deserves to be left alone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. Seasider53 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 *  A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject New York City, the only WikiProject listed on Talk:Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary split. Rorshacma and Locomotive207 cover my thoughts on LISTN. Shorten to the stuff that matters (per coverage in reliable sources) and include in the main article's prose. IMDB and Genius are unreliable. czar  06:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This nomination seemed familiar, and sure enough, similar articles were deleted some weeks ago: Articles for deletion/Orange County, California, in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Maine in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Rhode Island in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Tallahassee in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Mobile, Alabama, in popular culture, etc. Unless a suitable article can be written like Hoover Dam in popular culture, this list is not a notable topic. ✗  plicit  12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. In the article about Washington Heights there should be a section about works set in Washington Heights, if descriptive sources about that are found, whereas the more sporadic mentions of Washington Heights, such as playing a peripheral role in a single episode sometime, should be thrown out. Geschichte (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2021 (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.