Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky

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. Some (i.e. or 2) of the notable, major claims could be merged into Fyodor Dostoevsky if they're cited and agreed upon. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky

More unreferenced original research. A list of assertions that this fictional work or that was "inspired" by Dostoevsky, with no citations to back up any of this. If citations can be found for one or two of the most important things (the Alfred Hitchcock film, for instance) then maybe those could be added to the main biography page. The article itself should just be deleted, since it provides nothing of any encyclopedic value. *** Crotalus *** 11:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia's "In popular culture" category articles constitutes the world's single most useful Popular Culture Encyclopedia and every year it gets better. Help that effort to make it an even better pop culture encyclopedia within the vast Wikipedia encyclopedia that contains all other encyclopedias. Don't try to destroy it. I suppose if you were editing Wikipedia in 2003, you would have put up the whole encyclopedia for deletion because at that time no article on Wikipedia was adequately sourced by today's standards. We don't delete an article just because it is not yet perfect. Further, there is no reason to believe citations can not be found for the article's claims. Nor is there a reason to believe that in coming years this article could not be improved so that it is not merely a list. Improve, don't delete. http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&hs=7mg&q=%22The+Master+of+Petersburg%22+Dostoevsky+&btnG=Search can be used to find a cite for the first claim. Start there. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Have to agree with *** Crotalus *** . WP:OR Shoessss | Chat 13:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the items in this list, only the first and the last could reasonably be interpreted as depictions of Dostoevski. There's a difference between a reference to one or another of D's works and a depiction of the guy himself. The references to the novels can be (and probably are; I haven't checked) included in the novels' articles if they're felt to be significant. Deor (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 15:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spinoff article created because the maintainers of Fyodor Dostoevsky feel that an encyclopedia article about the Russian literary legend might not actually need references to "Family Guy". Although the writers of that show and "The Simpsons" are brilliant, that's not necessarily true of their fans. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand or merge this short article that demonstrates the influence of Dostoevsky on popular culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fyodor Dostoevsky#Works and influence. Clearly the content of this article has little to no encylopedia value on it's own, however it would be much more illuminating to show Dostoevsky's lasting influence on literature/film/culture in general. I see no reason why this content can't be accommodated in that section. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to main article on Dostoyevksy if space permits. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which content would that be? If Sir Winston Churchill was mentioned in an episode of The Flintstones, would that be a significant part of his legacy? Should an article about Les Miserables include a note about Phoebe mispronouncing the title on Friends? Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone have this mistaken idea that IPC sections are either "all or nothing"? Of the nine entries in this list, 6 clearly demonstrate Dostoyevsky's cultural influence, while 3 have perhaps questionable value. Don't kill the patient to cure the disease, just remove non-notable entries from the list. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the point is not to let the "disease" re-infect a patient who is recovering from nausea, which is the applicable analogy for the suggestion of a merger. This is the type of garbage that doesn't belong in a scholarly article about Fyodor Dostoevsky. I think that both the keep and delete votes are premised on the idea that this is stuff that one wants to keep separate from another article, hence the all-or-nothing view. Some people want to keep it to protect the original article's integrity; some want to delete it as something that they think isn't worth making an article out of. If you're changing your suggestion from "merge" to "keep", I can better understand the "improve rather than delete" argument. Mandsford (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a lost cause from the get-go. However, the main Fyodor Dostoevsky article would benefit from some of the content in this article, as it demonstrates his influence in mordern media film/television/etc. That's why I still recommend trim and merge. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 12:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone will object if you want to do that type of improvement on the main article right now, particularly before what useful information there is disappears. I trust your discretion entirely on that one; I think we both have the same opinion concerning the scholarly value of the references to Family Guy and the like. Mandsford (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could be done easily. --andreasegde (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NickPenguin. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a trash-bin to prevent the main article being degraded by trivia. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

To expand on the remark above: Wikipedia contains a multitude of users whose interests are limited to the trivial aspects of popular culture. They do valuable work by chronicling the existence of popular music bands, TV shows and so forth but their contributions may not be appropriate for articles of greater importance, such as the one on Dostoevsky (I admit a POV here). My suggestion is that the article Cultural depictions of Fyodor Dostoevsky be retained to provide an outlet for those people in this category who are intent on saying their own two cents worth. I fear this may sound supercilious but the issue is a real problem in the culture of Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2008 (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.