Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural references to the Rosenbergs

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. Walton^One 15:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to the Rosenbergs

Most of these are non-notable mentions in TV shows and films, the few notable references could be detailed in a couple of sentences in the main article. Either way, this list can be deleted, it still exists in the edit history of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg if anyone does want to re-add anything. Crazysuit 02:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing particularly new or enlightening about the listed references to add anything to our understanidng of the Rosenbergs or the cultural impact of their trial/execution. The historical and cultural ramifications of the pair can more effectively be addressed in the main article Dick G 04:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge back because this is a list of loosely associated topics as most of these are trivial mentions Corpx 04:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. Trivia, and a list of indiscriminate information. Resolute 04:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of these series again? The information are all trival. --H irohisat ^Talk 06:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated topics with nothing in common past an appearance, in most instances extremely trivial, of the name "Rosenbergs." Otto4711 13:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge, or if that meets with resistance, keep. At least parts of this — the parts that refer to The Bell Jar and Angels in America — ought to be mentioned in the article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but in either case, please add references. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is indeed a list of cultural references, with a few books, films and poems, and a lot of wisecracks and bits of dialogue. Mandsford 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge notable references. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 20:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major historical event with major cultural repercussions from then until now. The usual arguments are being given, that some of the content is not worth including--an editing question. I am seriously concerned to see no let up on the attack on this sort of content. I am going to ventured a prediction: that 6 months from now all the recently deleted articles will be back, and generally accepted. If it was thought necessary to get people to improve them, I'd think it were adequately done by now--though it takes months to improve what takes 5 days to delete. Presumably they think we're too tired to continue defending them. Agreed it is very much easier to write a sentence or two repeating the same catch--phrases than to mount a reasoned and adequate defense--this is true for any article. I see the continued listings as a continuing effort to reorient Wikipedia in a much less comprehensive direction, incompatible with the basic goal of being a general encyclopedia.DGG (talk)

You forgot to sign your post, DGG, although it was obvious without looking that it was yours. Sorry if you think that Wikipedia's becoming less of a trivia dumping ground is a bad thing. Me, I see any move toward concentrating on serious content with encyclopedic value to be a positive move for the project as a whole. The less time editors spend on cramming "lookie there, somebody said 'Ethel Rosenberg' on TV" nonsense into articles under the deep misapprehension that such trivia illuminates the topic of the Rosenbergs, the more time they'll have to maybe work on something worthwhile. Otto4711 21:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Six of the 14 have the Rosenberg case as the principal plot element. Only two deal with TV at all, and yes the use in those two is trivial, as is in my opinion most TV. I don't therefore wish to eliminate coverage of TV, though I certainly wish to neither write nor read the articles. I read two of them to write this note and that is quite enough. I leave them to those interested, and I advise Otto to do likewise. DGG (talk) 01:57, 18 August 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.