Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alzheimer's in the media

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 Keep. Article to be renamed to reflect content. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alzheimer's in the media

Alzheimer's in the media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Similar to trivia sections Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. See Wikipedia:Trivia sectionsCs california (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete split off trivia section. No sources available to verify discussion of the specific phenomenon of Alzheimer's in the media. User:Dorftrottel 10:17, January 22, 2008
    • Amending to merge per Pwnage8. However, only material that can be verified through reliable sources should be salvaged. User:Dorftrottel 23:52, January 22, 2008
  • Merge with Alzheimer's disease under #Cultural references. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename (the author probably fears, understandably, that "in popular culture" is Wikipedia code for "please delete this"). Characters who are becoming senile have been seen already, such as Don Ameche as Tom Selleck's dad in Folks. As the elderly population increases, and there are more Alzheimer's patients and caregivers, the trend will be toward even more films and TV shows where it's a plot point. Hollywood hasn't yet given us reason for "Broken hip in popular culture" or "Incontinence in fiction" Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
But wikipedia doe not allow trivia sections with misc facts see: Wikipedia:Trivia sections --Cs california (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - per Pwnage8. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is enough material. To split off a trivia section as worth a separate article and then to delete does not strike me as a desirable way of proceeding. Sources can easily me added. DGG (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Consider that such sources need to specifically discuss dispositifs of Alzheimer's. User:Dorftrottel 15:02, January 23, 2008
  • Keep: It was me the author of the page. It was removed from the alzheimers page as a way of reducing the main article, but there is enough material to keep by itself. At the same time I think the topic can be both interesting and useful. Of course references should be provided--Garrondo (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has sources to demonstate that this is a notable subject - I just added a couple more myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe a good idea is only to leave in the list only those entries with alzheimer as a critical feature of the main plot. Therefore a lot of trivia would be avoided: I believe a list of films portraying alzheimer its useful as encyclopedic reference while it is not useful at all to list any kind of document where alzheimer appears. --Garrondo (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable topic, can be covered independently from main article. Everyking (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This will be created again soon if it is deleted - it's actually been discussed in Talk and is needed to work from. I propose a rename to 'Sociological and cultural aspects of Alzheimer's disease' (per the Featured Article on Autism). It will eventually become a strong and long article - and the main Alzheimer's page is getting quite large (and has simply reached the stage where splitting is starting to occur). Autism has around 10 dedicated side pages (many link from words in the paragraphs). This one is needed so we can get future info into it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment a rename will be necessary, for "...in the media" gives the impression as in the news media, which is not what is intended. Which ones should be included can be discussed at the article talk page. We do now more or less agree how to handle this sort of articles--almost all proposed for deletion in the last month or two here have been kept. DGG (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
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.