Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr. (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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 19:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Sammy Davis, Jr.[edit]

Delete - article was previously nominated and closed with no consensus. There has been little improvement to the article in the intervening time. The article remains an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any time the words "Sammy Davis Jr" are mentioned in any film, song, TV show or podcast. Reasons offered for keeping last time boiled down to "there are other articles like it" which is not a good reason for keeping an article and a suggestion that the article be "cleaned up" and "verified," which did not happen. See similar AFDs for John Coltrane, The Who and Aerosmith. Otto4711 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably should be a section under Sammy Davis, Jr. if allowed per talk page. BlackBear 13:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on that would be that the only part of it that might possibly be acceptable in the main article is a list of the people who played him. I can't see any need to clutter up the main article with such gems as how They Might Be Giants said his name once. Otto4711 13:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate information. Plasticbottle 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the editor who created Wikipedia's featured list called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc I can see what this editor has been trying to do here. I've reorganized it a bit and removed the lone podcast. The other entries are notable and verifiable. Actual verification would help, as would a clearer inclusion criteria: depictions of Sammy Davis Jr. ought not to include instances where he acted or sang. Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort of varying quality. Slap a cleanup template on this rather than delete. Durova^Charge! 13:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply no comparison between the Joan of Arc list and this one. And as noted in the nomination, "Wikipedia has plenty of articles of this sort" is not really a good reason for keeping. Many of those articles, including the ones linked to in the nom and dozens more, have been deleted for the same reasons this one should be. Otto4711 14:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No comparison? Have a look at the featured list's embryonic form as it was on October 26, 2005 (two days before I started editing).[1] Doesn't look promising, does it? Wikipedia has a large contingent of deletionists who probably would have jettisoned that material from the project. A similar wholesale deletion actually happened at Alexander the Great, but fortunately a deletionist was conscientious enough to repost the material to the talk page so that it could get rescued as a separate list. Where's the dividing line? The facts on this page are notable and verifiable - maybe not so highbrow by today's standards, but exactly the sort of information typically discarded as ephemera until it's nearly impossible for later generations of scholars to recover it. In the late twentieth century it took a doctoral dissertation to track down all occurrences of Joan of Arc in film. Many of the early prints no longer exist at all. Electrons are cheap - let's not repeat that destructive cycle. Durova^Charge! 03:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Electrons are cheap" is also not particularly compelling. We have policies and guidelines and articles that don't meet them are deleted regardless of how cheap electrons are. And no, there is no comparison between the JoA or the ATG lists and this one, which seeks to capture such vitally significant items as Adam Sandler's singing the name in a song, which is in no way notable. Otto4711 04:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm is not particularly compelling. Social historians read such data as evidence that this individual remains known to younger generations. One of the principal questions such people must address is whether a celebrity of the past is a forgotten name or an iconic figure. If one happens to be a biographer preparing a book proposal about Sammy Davis, Jr., the ability to cite recent references such as Adam Sandler's is quite meaningful. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means. And may I also add, free of sarcasm, that if any writer proposing or publisher considering a book proposal about Sammy would even mention the Adam Sandler song in the course of the negotiations, let alone sell the book on it, I'll eat Sammy's glass eye. "Oh yeah, all the kids'll be running out to snap up the book based on their intense curiosity about Sammy that was ignited by Adam Sandler's throwaway line in a novelty song!" Otto4711 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe that was a little sarcastic. Otto4711 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (yawn). or merge into his article. I agree with the non-comparison with Joan of Arc. --FateClub 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Durova. She had shown these list are inherently doomed and the suggesting to clean up and maintain the list is much better than to delete the text and see the references to jump back into the article. Those who disagree with this kind of articles have chance as anybody else to propose effective Wikipedia policy to deal with them (including 3RR & blocks). It would be much better than to move even more burden on maintainers of the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you're arguing better in a separate article than in the main article because it's more convenient for the people who monitor the main article. That is a terrible argument. If the information is garbage, then it's garbage no matter what article it's in. All splitting it off does is shift the responsibility from one group of editors to another. Otto4711 15:13, 31 March 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.