Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Hamlet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- References to Hamlet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Unencyclopedic and unmaintainable list. The number of references to Hamlet in popular culture and elsewhere are so many as to make this list infinite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dr bab 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unmaintainable list, this would be like trying to compile Television in popular culture. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. Notable references should be merged into Hamlet. Madman bum and angel 22:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Obviously encyclopedic. It can be divided up into separate articles as needed. Researchers, browsers and artists of various types would all find encyclopedic use for this topic. Noroton 01:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how splitting the article will solve anything. The number of references to Hamlet will still be too large to maintain. Furthermore, usefullness is not an inclusion critera. Dr bab 01:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep As it is now, the article is pretty sad and falls into a lot of anti-wikipedia categories, however I do not think deletion is the answer, but improvement. Here are some suggestions for improvement: 1)Eliminate references that merely quote Hamlet, rather than being based on its plot in some larger way. 2)Organize those plot portrayals into prose. This, I think, would make a very nice, useful article. Many literature articles have sections like this in them (Sir Gawain and the Green Knight similar stories section), but with Hamlet there are too many similar stories to fit into a section, and an article is needed. In short, kill the list form and the less notable info, and compile the rest into more encyclopedic prose. Wrad 07:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just used it, and found it very useful, and you want to delete it? Think of people, instead of looking good. Sharpevil 21:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- Wrad's suggestions do make some sense, but I am still unsure whether it is possible to write such an article that is of a reasonable length, and avoid it being a long listing (not a list, but still a listing) of various works, and wether it is at all probable or possible to make it complete. There are a LOT of stuff inspired by Hamlet out there. Another issue is to find someone willing to undertake this massive task.
- I will not bother with it at the moment, but if this article does not get deleted, I will go over it and at least delete all the items that merely quote hamlet, or have too thin a connection, as suggested. But for now, I will see how this afd ends.
- Sharpevil's comment is not really helpful. As stated in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, whether or not an item is useful is not relevant to wether it gets deleted or not. What matters is wether it belongs in an encyclopedia or not. A lot of useful information does not belong in an encyclopedia.Dr bab 09:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Comments
- One thing that will make it easier is that there is already a Shakespeare on screen page with movies based on Hamlet, so those could be deleted or moved . . . Wrad 16:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this could be moved to Influences of Hamlet. The Shakespeare on screen info could be moved/summarized into it, and the lesser references removed. The rest could be turned into prose somehow. I'm willing to give it a try, see how it looks. School is almost out for me. Wrad 16:39, 13 April 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.