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 No consensus (default to Keep). Walton^talk 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes

[edit]

Indiscriminate list and directory of loosely-associated topics. Seeks to capture any reference to Holmes or any character from Holmes whether Holmes appears or not or anything that has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase. Otto4711 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I think Holmes is such an iconic and popular figure that an article about this topic could be written up to encyclopedic standards. This is not it -- it's unsourced and very tenuously connected. --Haemo 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete anything interesting to main article. -N 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete as per Corvus cornix and Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps. huji—TALK 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sherlock Holmes has in fact attained an extremely large place in popular culture in the 120 years since the first story was published. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles popular culture references should be spun off to a separate article if they make the main article too long. The Sherlock Holmes article is too long as is, at 77k. These entries are not loosely associated (they are fictional appearances of Holmes or his main villain Moriarity), not indiscriminate (all are closely related to Sherlock Holmes), and not trivial, and so the grounds proposed by the nominator and other advocates of deletion do not apply. In any event, WP:TRIVIA, labelled a guideline, is so disputed that it has had to be protected, not a ringing endorsement of its having consensus. The normal editing process can remove any entry which merely "has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase." It is not OR or unsourced to state that a CS Lewis book says "those days Mr Sherlock Holmes was still living in Baker Street ... " We do not need a second book stating what the first book says, or stating that a reference to Holmes is a reference to Holmes. Deletion is inappropriate for something which genuinely has a major place in pop culture, as does Sherlock Holmes. Edison 19:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles is an essay. It has absolutely no force as a policy or a guideline. It is an expression of opinion. Even if it did have some measure of force, it does not say what you're representing it to say. It does not say that "in popular culture" sections should be split off into a standalone article. It says that such sections in articles are discouraged and that the temptation to fork out such sections from the main article should be resisted, but that if it is succumbed to the resulting article must meet all relevant policies and guidelines. This list is indiscriminate and its items are loosely associated because it seeks to capture every reference that it can regardless of the source of it and it offers no commentary about the importance of the reference in the work from which it's drawn, to Holmes, or in the real world. What does knowing that C.S. Lewis wrote the words "Sherlock Holmes" in a book tell us about Holmes, the book, Lewis or the world? Nothing. What does knowing that in an episode of CSI the team investigated the murder of a Holmes portrayer in a fan club tell us about Holmes, CSI or the real world? Nothing. What does the mention of Holmes in a Coasters song tell us about Holmes, the Coasters or the real world? Nothing. There are certainly ways to do articles on the pop culture impact of things. The oft-bandied about Joan of Arc list is one. The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, although it needs a good bit of work, is another. But these endless lists of in-this-movie-this-one-guy-says-Blah-to-this-other-guy kind of "be the first to spot the reference" game some editors like to play under the delusion that it contributes something worthwhile to the project, aren't. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the result, do not merge it back. There was a good reason to offload this information away. And I have to agree with Edison - for example there one rather known 1930s movie in Czech language using the "Sherlock Holmes" character. Not that I am going to put it there but to me it strongly suggests that people will feel the need to insert such references. It is better to have them in a leaf than in the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better here than there is a poor reason for maintaining a pop culture article. As has been said time and again, if the people who maintain an article want this stuff gone, they should edit it out. Dumping a pile of garbage into a separate article is irresponsible and places a burden on other editors to do the job that the editors of the initial article should have dealt with. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much good now, but certainly could be. Johnbod 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced trivia.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and tenuously-linked trivia at the moment. Something good may be able to come of this article, but this isn't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though in most cases these articles are unnecessary, for the major cultural icons there should be, and I for one would like to see all the non-English media versions found and discussed. WP is the ideal place for this. DGG 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is a clear bias against these sorts of articles on Wikipedia, and the article itself can be improved, Sherlock Holmes is undeniably a case where such an article is viable and necessary. 23skidoo 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ever notice how often at AFDs people base their argument for keeping in large part or even in toto on how much better the article could be? And then, in two months when the article is nominated again because it's still terrible and no one's done any work on it, it gets deleted? Otto4711 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the Holmes stories are very influential, but that's covered in Sherlock Holmes in other media and (the atrociously titled) Non-canonical works related and derived from Sherlock Holmes. I don't see what this covers that those don't, except really trivial offhand mentions. —Cel ithemis 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually neither article (I agree that the name of the latter is suboptimal) really captures the spirit of the article I envision (and yes, I am hoping perhaps against hope that te someone would write it). The other media article is the films, tv stories, etc. based on Sherlock Holmes; the non-canonical adaptations (SH is in the public domain apparently and anyone can write a SH book, or make a movie). Neither article touches upon the public's inclusion and adoption of Holmes in anything but the literary and film/tv sense. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the information in Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes really get us any closer to that?

Whatever of it isn't already in other articles, that is. In addition to the two other articles I mentioned, there's also quite a bit of similar stuff in Sherlock Holmes. In all, two articles include lists of Holmes computer games, three of them talk about House, and three discuss the same Neil Gaiman story. —Cel ithemis 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That question you pose is an interesting one: one the one hand, no; on the other hand, once this gets deleted, no one could write the article that I envisage; it would be speedied as "yet another one of those pop culture" articles that "we deleted a while back". Carlossuarez46 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Any number of articles which were deleted have been recreated. There is no prejudice to recreated deleted articles that are qualitatively different from the deleted. No one is likely to look to delete at an actual sourced article that discusses the phenomenon of SH in popular culture as opposed to a random smattering of bullet points on the grounds that it's recreated material. Otto4711 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violation of WP:NOT and, as already stated, Sherlock Holmes in other media exists for less trivial bits. Most of this is indiscriminate trivia. Besides, "Pop culture"? Incredibly tacky. María (críticame) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a fictional character's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main Sherlock Holmes article is already quite long. It's reasonable and expected per WP:SUMMARY to split sections off into subarticles, such as this. Sherlock Holmes and pop culture is a notable enough topic that there are reliable sources available for this article. --Aude (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUMMARY does not exempt articles created under its guideline from conforming to other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but perhaps rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture. There are plenty of reliables sources commenting on the phenomenon of Sherlock Holmes in popular culture that it deserves an article based on that commentary. Sure, the article in its current state is not the ideal Wikipedia article, but there is no reason it needs to be wiped and started all over; everything in the article is at least sourceable to primary sources. On the other hand, merging and redirecting to Sherlock Holmes in other media may be an acceptable compromise. DHowell 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No topic "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements. Otto4711 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture as suggested above. --24.154.173.243 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.