536:, 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 Knowledge has some server space issues at the moment. I understand the motive for deleting pages on Knowledge 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 Knowledge, 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.
488::"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
743:. 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
254:- 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 Knowledge 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
701:
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
609:
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
900:. 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.
686:
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.
201:
561:: 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. --
858:
702:
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
774:
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
135:
130:
874:
139:
300:
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?
739:- 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
122:
195:
768:- Just a reminder for everyone, that although there are editors who very much dislike Knowledge covering pop culture references (not a cabal, just individual editors who really can't stand it), there has
866:
870:
646:
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
468:- 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'.
862:
425:
355:
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
162:
445:
551:
216:
183:
109:
94:
909:
892:
849:
827:
807:
790:
760:
717:
696:
677:
641:
619:
596:
570:
524:
477:
457:
437:
404:
386:
368:
346:
328:
310:
291:
273:
245:
64:
177:
605:
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."
173:
815:
126:
223:
547:
118:
70:
814:
A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject New York City, the only WikiProject listed on
837:. Unnecessary split. Rorshacma and Locomotive207 cover my thoughts on LISTN. Shorten to the stuff that matters (per coverage in
655:
189:
647:
89:
82:
17:
878:
543:
651:
103:
99:
628:
list" refers to
Washington Heights specifically, not pop culture lists in general. Also, USEFUL states, "Remember,
584:
926:
40:
838:
823:
786:
713:
673:
515:
382:
342:
306:
269:
692:
637:
592:
400:
364:
324:
287:
241:
922:
261:
36:
905:
803:
539:
756:
615:
580:
566:
473:
453:
433:
209:
857:. This nomination seemed familiar, and sure enough, similar articles were deleted some weeks ago:
632:" (bolding as in USEFUL). "disservice to readers" is like saying it's useful because it's useful.
887:
819:
782:
709:
669:
533:
509:
501:
378:
338:
302:
265:
688:
633:
588:
396:
360:
320:
283:
237:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
921:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
260:
the article fails NLIST, just waves their hands and says it is. This amounts to nothing but
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
606:
282:
I stated "I couldn't find any other such list." There is no consideration of it as a group.
901:
799:
748:
740:
493:
489:
485:
233:
843:
752:
611:
562:
521:
505:
469:
449:
429:
55:
882:
744:
497:
532:
Bruh. The only reason this was created was basically as a compromise between me and
708:
reasoning is something else entirely. Those are entirely relevant considerations.
377:
What other kind of "in
Washington Heights" list would you expect to find, and why?
156:
859:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Orange County, California, in popular culture
841:) and include in the main article's prose. IMDB and Genius are unreliable.
682:
Do you seriously think that I would say something so stupid as I never saw
658:
article does not means that the current article is not valid. 'Fess up,
875:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Mobile, Alabama, in popular culture
337:
Not when the two points directly contradict each other you can't.
917:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
867:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Rhode Island in popular culture
871:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Tallahassee in popular culture
319:
Your "reasoning" is beyond my ken. I can't make two points?
863:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Maine in popular culture
152:
148:
144:
208:
877:, etc. Unless a suitable article can be written like
816:
Talk:Washington
Heights, Manhattan in popular culture
492:. And because this list appears to just be a case of
630:
you need to say why the article is useful or useless
426:
list of
Popular culture-related deletion discussions
232:Yet another "x in pop culture" example that fails
661:you just don't want popcult coverage on Knowledge
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
929:). No further edits should be made to this page.
444:Note: This discussion has been included in the
424:Note: This discussion has been included in the
119:Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture
71:Washington Heights, Manhattan in popular culture
778:no different from any other referenced material
446:list of New York-related deletion discussions
222:
8:
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
656:Washington Heights in classical literature
443:
423:
236:. I couldn't find any other such list.
7:
881:, this list is not a notable topic.
668:why you want to delete the article.
624:Again, as I stated above just now, "
610:hence be a disservice to readers. --
395:None, and that's why NLIST applies.
24:
781:, and deserves to be left alone.
652:Skyscrapers in Washington Heights
95:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
879:Hoover Dam in popular culture
650:. The fact that there is no
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
946:
910:13:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
893:12:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
850:06:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
828:20:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
808:20:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
791:20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
761:16:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
718:01:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
697:21:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
678:23:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
642:21:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
620:16:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
597:04:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
571:19:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
525:12:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
478:10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
458:07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
438:07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
405:21:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
387:23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
369:21:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
347:06:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
329:04:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
311:21:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
292:11:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
274:05:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
246:02:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
65:08:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
919:Please do not modify it.
648:WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
544:The Spirit of Oohoowahoo
32:Please do not modify it.
496:, it's a violation of
579:So your rationale is
83:Articles for deletion
798:as per nomination.
585:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
830:
542:comment added by
460:
440:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
937:
890:
885:
848:
846:
839:reliable sources
813:
687:Obfuscate much?
555:
520:
518:
512:
227:
226:
212:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
945:
944:
940:
939:
938:
936:
935:
934:
933:
927:deletion review
888:
883:
844:
842:
537:
516:
510:
508:
169:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
943:
941:
932:
931:
913:
912:
895:
852:
832:
810:
793:
763:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
600:
599:
574:
573:
556:
527:
480:
462:
461:
441:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
390:
389:
372:
371:
350:
349:
332:
331:
314:
313:
295:
294:
277:
276:
262:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
230:
229:
166:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
942:
930:
928:
924:
920:
915:
914:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
894:
891:
886:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
853:
851:
847:
840:
836:
833:
831:
829:
825:
821:
820:Beyond My Ken
817:
811:
809:
805:
801:
797:
794:
792:
788:
784:
783:Beyond My Ken
780:
779:
773:
772:
767:
764:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
719:
715:
711:
710:Beyond My Ken
707:
706:
700:
699:
698:
694:
690:
685:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
670:Beyond My Ken
667:
663:
662:
657:
653:
649:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
535:
534:Beyond My Ken
531:
528:
526:
523:
519:
513:
511:Locomotive207
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
484:
481:
479:
475:
471:
467:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
442:
439:
435:
431:
427:
422:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
379:Beyond My Ken
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
348:
344:
340:
339:Beyond My Ken
336:
335:
334:
333:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
303:Beyond My Ken
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
271:
267:
266:Beyond My Ken
263:
259:
258:
253:
250:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
918:
916:
897:
854:
834:
812:
795:
777:
776:
770:
769:
765:
736:
704:
703:
689:Clarityfiend
683:
665:
660:
659:
634:Clarityfiend
629:
625:
589:Clarityfiend
581:WP:ITSUSEFUL
558:
538:— Preceding
529:
482:
465:
397:Clarityfiend
361:Clarityfiend
356:
321:Clarityfiend
284:Clarityfiend
256:
255:
251:
238:Clarityfiend
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
502:WP:LISTCRIT
196:free images
902:Geschichte
800:Seasider53
58:Sandstein
923:talk page
753:Rorshacma
612:Albany NY
607:WP:USEFUL
563:Albany NY
470:Waxworker
450:Shellwood
430:Shellwood
37:talk page
925:or in a
749:WP:LISTN
741:WP:LISTN
552:contribs
540:unsigned
494:WP:IINFO
490:WP:SALAT
486:WP:LISTN
359:list").
257:what way
234:WP:NLIST
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
766:Comment
202:WP refs
190:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
898:Delete
889:plicit
855:Delete
835:Delete
796:Delete
745:WP:GNG
737:Delete
705:actual
666:that's
664:, and
498:WP:CSC
483:Delete
466:Delete
174:Google
140:delete
50:delete
771:never
217:JSTOR
178:books
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
906:talk
845:czar
824:talk
804:talk
787:talk
757:talk
714:talk
693:talk
674:talk
638:talk
626:such
616:talk
593:talk
583:and
567:talk
559:Keep
548:talk
530:Keep
517:talk
500:and
474:talk
454:talk
434:talk
401:talk
383:talk
365:talk
357:such
343:talk
325:talk
307:talk
288:talk
270:talk
252:Keep
242:talk
210:FENS
184:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
751:.
747:or
684:any
654:or
504:.--
264:.
224:TWL
161:– (
908:)
873:,
869:,
865:,
861:,
826:)
818:.
806:)
789:)
759:)
716:)
695:)
676:)
640:)
618:)
595:)
587:?
569:)
554:)
550:•
522:🌀
506:🌀
476:)
456:)
448:.
436:)
428:.
403:)
385:)
367:)
345:)
327:)
309:)
290:)
272:)
244:)
204:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
52:.
904:(
884:✗
822:(
802:(
785:(
755:(
712:(
691:(
672:(
636:(
614:(
591:(
565:(
546:(
514:-
472:(
452:(
432:(
399:(
381:(
363:(
341:(
323:(
305:(
286:(
268:(
240:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.