Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One 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 No consensus, defaulting to keep. Shimeru 08:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force One in popular culture

Trivial information that neither needs its own article nor a section in Air Force One. Besides, the only notable thing on the page is on the film of the same name. SeizureDog 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Air Force One ? Manik Raina
Keep. The article was created to move the popular culture references away from the main article. If deleted people will start to add them into the main text again, making maintenance of the text more annoying than it needs to be. In any case do not merge anything back, please, that would be step back in quality. Pavel Vozenilek 11:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it shouldn't be merged back, but to keep it on grounds of being too lazy to make sure it's not re-added to the main article doesn't seem justified.--SeizureDog 12:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh good, we have a volunteer! Bear in mind that there are TWO articles (Air Force One and Boeing VC-25) which deal with the current AF1s, and you'll have to watch them both. I RESENT your assertion that editors who don't wan't to deal with the cruft are simply lazy. I have fought cruft for months here on Wiki, and they do NOT add THEMSELVES. Many crufters will fight tooth-and-nail to keep their items in the articles (see Talk:F-15 Eagle's battle over Transformers). As I detail below, as long as Wiki policy permits itms like these, they have to go somewhere. I have yet to encounter a crufter who objects to having a separate page for their items, but they just want them on Wiki. I am totally for banning ALL unsourced cruft, and will join you in this fight if you want to challege the current rules. But for now, having pop-culture pages is an acceptable compromise on the issue under Wiki's current policies and guidelines. - BillCJ 16:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I much agree here. Trying to maintain a popular article where people add pop-culture references every day gets futile after a short while. The leaf pages, IME, lessen the maintenance burden significantly. Pavel Vozenilek 15:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in popular culture. The way to fix bloated "in pupular culture" cruft is to prune it, not to split it out into new "articles" composed of nothing but cruft. Guy (Help!) 12:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The way to fix bloated pop-culture items is to BAN them, esp. since most are unsourced. Until then, these articles are legitimate, and should remain. This IS a PRUNED list; I participated in the pruning on several occasions. - BillCJ 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the rest of popular culture with it Alf^Photoman 15:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was created (by me) after a split of the Air Force One page (which covers the history of the name and callsign), and the Boeing VC-25 page (which covers the current planes uses as AF1). Because of the split, it was confusing to have two separate Pop culture sections in both articles, with the same items being added to each list by editors unaware of the other list. ALL items on this page at this point are there because of consenus over several months of editing and pruning of the list on the main article. Most serious avialtion editors in Project AIrcraft would rather not have pop-culture items at all, but as long as Wikipedia permits them, pages such as this are a suitable compromise. I will oppose re-adding this material back into the main article on that page, if it happens. It will only cause confusion in the furture. If you don't like cruft, then try get Wiki policy changed to ban it; deleting pages like this is not the way to go. As long as crufters feel they are allowed to add their cruft to Wikipedia, it has to go somewhere; better here than cluttering up the main articles. - BillCJ 16:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture any reference to a president's being on a plane, since "Air Force One" refers to any airplane on which the POTUS happens to be flying. Better here than in the main article is a terrible justification for these "...in popular culture" articles. If editors don't want the material in the articles they maintain, then they should remove it and keep removing it instead of dumping the problem off on another set of editors by splitting it off. Otto4711 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it's vandalism, repeatedly removing items will violate WP:3RR. This is official policy, not a guidline, and some idiot admin will block me for it. So in the real world, your suggestion to keep deleting is just not practical, and VIOLATES policy. Besides, crufters have friends, and they can gang up to form a concensus to keep the most inane items imaginable, and then you're screwed. - BillCJ 17:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR has a time restriction. Removing the items as they are added back does not in and of itself violate any policy. Otto4711 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if someone keeps re-adding the same cruft, and I keep deleting it, it's a content dispute. Deleting repetedly-added material is not a preferred way of handling content disputes on Wiki. - BillCJ 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with BillC. Until a policy is created banning such articles, they have a right to exist if their topic is notable enough, can be sourced, is non-POV, etc. This topic is notable enough to justify an "in popular culture" article. 23skidoo 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No article has a "right to exist." Otto4711 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a persistant interest in such pop culture references, and having this seperate article helps unclutter the main article on the subject. -- Infrogmation 17:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, better here than there is not a really good reason for keeping. Otto4711 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, that's a guideline, not a policy. In this case, it's better here than in TWO places, as explained in detail above. Whether one like Pop-culture pages or not, one really should consider the actual intent here, which could have been uncovered by a little reasearch. It was easy to find out who created the page, and ask the creator why he felt it necessary. But that was not done in this case (others might accuse one of being lazy). - BillCJ 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it's an essay. At no time did I suggest that it was anything other than an essay so I'm unclear as to why you felt the need to remind me of it. Essay or not, BHTT is still a piss-poor argument and if the best or only reason for having an article is because the information in it is trivial clutter from the main article, then that ought to be an indication that the information shouldn't be anywhere. I also understand why you thought it was necessary. Thinking that you couldn't possibly be more wrong in your reasoning doesn't mean that I don't understand your reasoning. The big problem with your reasoning is that now, instead of there being two articles to monitor for garbage content, there are three. That doesn't really strike me as accomplishing, well, anything. Otto4711 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really a BHTT argument, because the Pop-culture content is sufficient for a stand-alone article. The case at WP:BHTT deals with splitting unsuitable content, rather than deleting it. In this case, cruft has been pruned, and the article contains substantial items like major motion pictures, books, etc. Dhaluza 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all "trivia" references are trivial. Some are important. The summary style link in Air Force One is excellently written leading to this breakout article. The subject matter of this article includes notable books by well-known authors, high-budget Hollywood movies, and songs, of which Air Force One is the primary subject, not a mere mention in passing. This kind of article is an excellent reference intersection of several items on the same subject matter but which aren't otherwise linked. SchmuckyTheCat 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent, delete it or keep it, but do not merge with Air Force 1. Good technical and encyclopaedic articles are distracted by excessive trivia and are ruined by volumes of cruft. Emoscopes ^Talk 20:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Air Force One article is long, and splitting off a section is normal editorial practice, as was splitting off Boeing VC-25 because it was an obvious content dividing line. Further splitting off the popular culture is a logical choice, because the relationships to the main article are more tangential, and including the trivia in both articles is redundant. With a major motion picture, books, etc. there is more than enough verifiable content for a stand-alone pop-culture article. The arguments here against popular culture content sound like WP:IDON'TLIKEIT IMHO. Dhaluza 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Given AF1's use in so many films and other media, this article should be there. -Fnlayson 21:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The material is notable by definition (especially the films and TV references), and yes, there actually are people interested in cultural references to aircraft such as this one. This article and others like it, are part of an effort of WP:AIR to accommodate information that needs to be mentioned somewhere other than in the aircraft's technical article. Akradecki 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BillCJ, Akradecki, Fnlayson, and others, although I will say that I'm not the least bit happy about the creeping fancruft in aviation articles either (and completely agree with Bill's reasoning for creating this article).--chris.lawson 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's what's stupid: if a subject is too notable, popular culture lists are deleted for having too many entries. It's only on subjects of less notability that "in popular culture" lists are made and kept for. Why should we have a Air Force One in popular culture when we certainly wouldn't stand for a Airplanes in popular culture? It's stupid that the less notable it is in popular culture, the more likely the list sticks around. Also, some of these votes seem like WP:ILIKEIT to me and are arguing that there are some people who are interested in this, which isn't a factor on if it should be kept or not.--SeizureDog 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - actually they aren't deleted for having too many entries, just split into more specific ones, like Helicopters in popular culture. Akradecki 05:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy's comments. Splitting articles into other articles is good when it's notable things: not trivia. Wikipedia isn't a trivia/pop culture guide. Small sections are fine in articles: if it gets big, prune it... don't seperate it into a cruft article. RobJ1981 03:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate list. Why not rebroach the topic of cruft?--Mmx1 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear god no! Please don't create any kind of policy solely for the purpose of allowing or disallowing "in popular culture" articles. Case-by-case consideration, even if time-consuming, is the best approach. That said, most of this article is verifiable and indeed verified through primary sources (i.e., the films, books, etc. themselves). However, the main article has a short "in popular culture" section that I believe is an adequate replacement for this list (although it could use selective expansion--of analysis, not additional instances). So, redirect without merging to Air Force One as this is a plausible search term. -- Black Falcon 03:46, 25 March 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.