Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palm Springs in popular culture

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. —Sean Whitton / 02:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Palm Springs in popular culture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like the recently deleted Maine in popular culture and the currently AfD'd Rhode Island in popular culture, this is an indiscriminate list with no credible claim of significance as a general topic. Fails WP:INPOPULARCULTURE. Aside from that, the title fails MOS:USPLACE (should be Palm Springs, California), and the article is largely written as a catalog with a ridiculous load of external links. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability, delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The nomination fails in five important respects. 1. INPOPULARCULTURE talks about popular culture sections which tend to clutter location related articles – this listing was created in order to avoid such clutter. 2. Likewise, the listing complies with MOS:POPCULT because it avoids the "section within an article" problem. 3. IINFO/indiscriminate list does not apply because the much of the "allure" of Palm Springs stems from its PopCulture nature. The listing IS a discriminate list that serves to document that allure, without getting into detail. (E.g., readers don't need an explanation about each reference.) The fact that the listing is long shows its notability/significance as a topic. 3. USPLACE is not a valid reason for deletion – if the article name is a problem then it can be renamed. 4. "Ridiculous load of external links" is not a valid reason – the "external links" are the references that support each item. 5. Just because one list-article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine) gets deleted does not justify deleting others. 6. I created [1] the list and my feelings would be hurt (not harmed) if it is deleted. – S. Rich (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03, Waxworker, and Rorshacma: – I'm not clear on how the list fails as an article. Our essay WP:IPCA recommends that a subarticle be created created in order to avoid "excessively long" IPC sections. This listing follows that suggestion. "Palm Springs" is in the title of some 100 of the items listed. Take Patencio, Francisco; Margaret Boynton. Stories and Legends of the Palm Springs Indians. LCCN 44018350. as an example. Chief Patencio is a noteworthy figure in Palm Springs history (one of the streets is named after him). His book title is spot-on in terms of the listing topic. But is there a reliable source that says "Patencio wrote a book about the Podunk Indians"? Actually no, but LISTN says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group." Patencio's book and the others contribute to the notability of the group. – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. Your statement about WP:LISTN is not about the actual topic of this article, wich is Palm Springs, California, in popular culture. As it stands, there are no reliable references about this general topic, and I'd like you to prove or disprove that is notable. Either way, there is no salvageable content as is because the article is an indiscriminate list that is written like a catalog. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: The second paragraph of LISTN helps explain. E.g., there is "no present consensus for how to assess the notability...". In other words, the delete WP:!VOTEs are simply personal takes on the PS list and not based on accepted policy or guidance. Next, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Well, the PS list is certainly informational. E.g., it shows that Palm Springs has been the setting in a lot of popular culture.

But here's a possible solution – we have a List of films and television series set in Palm Springs, California. Is that article acceptable? If so we can retitle this article to List of books and stories set in Palm Springs, California and List of songs and music-related items set in Palm Springs, California. (It just seems to me that the present list is clear in its scope and avoids an awkward title.) – S. Rich (talk) 02:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There needs to be actual reliable sources covering the overall topic of Palm Springs in popular culture in order to pass WP:LISTN, and it does not appear there are. As such, it is just a list of trivia without decent sources. Just glancing through the sources included, it seems like the vast majority are simply the actual books/songs/movies themselves. Rorshacma (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A courtesy relisting - Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is WP:OR--Rusf10 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: – No OR was done to produce the list. E.g., none of the works were opened up and read or even scanned to determine if they talked about Palm Springs. Rather the items listed are supported by secondary sources like WorldCat, LCCN, or Google Books – these secondary sources provide descriptions which mention Palm Springs and thereby support inclusion in the listing. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, its still OR. There is no source discussing the topic. Doing a Google Books search and listing the results of it is OR. If you need a second reason to delete, the list also fails WP:LISTN since as I just mentioned there are no sources discussing the topic and the items in the list are not independently notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Please take a look at List of books about Oxford or Bibliography of Los Angeles. You are saying that these two lists (and all the similar lists) are OR. Accordingly all of the Category:Bibliographies of countries or regions articles should be deleted. Few or none of these articles/lists have a "source" discussing the "topic", but that is not a valid reason to delete any of them. (Also you are misconstruing "Notable" – WP:NOTEWORTHY is the guidance.) WP:LISTCRITERIA tells us how to select items for inclusion in lists. "When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any the following are true: ... Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?" The Oxford and Los Angeles lists fulfill LISTCRITERIA, as does this list. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're shifted to pushing a WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. The existence of the other articles are irrelevant. We are evaluating only one article in this discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rusf10, you make a good point. A few points in response: 1. I hope I'm not pushing ALLORNOTHING. Rather I hoped the comparison might change your mind. 2. When LaundryPizza03 opened this discussion they posted Maine in popular culture and the Rhode Island in popular culture as examples. I made a counter-ALLORNOTHING comment (#5) in response. 3. The link guides me to WP:LISTOUTCOMES, which says "Lists are likely to be kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." I (continue to) contend that PS in PopCulture meets these criteria.

In the meantime I ask you, Rorshacma, LaundryPizza03, Waxworker to consider my alternative articles/titles (above). Would those titles or List of books about Palm Springs or Bibliography of Palm Springs work? After all, those titles avoid the "in Pop Culture" stigma. But they would provide articles that are WP:USEFUL to WP:READERS. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. Two bad arguments don't make a good one. (although the nominator did cite an actual policy too) 2. WP:LISTOUTCOMES is not a guideline 3. Read WP:USEFUL next time before you refer to it (hint: It's part of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)--Rusf10 (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2021 (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.