Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Indianapolis 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. Courcelles 00:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

USS Indianapolis in popular culture

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

Trivia. WP:NOTADIR. No reason why this deserves a separate article. Bulldog123 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to USS Indianapolis (CA-35). Several of the entries are not references "in popular culture," but rather nonfiction books and documentaries about it. The remainder appear to be substantial and notable enough to merit mentioning in the main article, which can easily incorporate them. Those aren't just one-off lines (strawman example of a trivial reference: "In an episode of Will and Grace, Grace threatens to "sink [Jack] like the USS Indianapolis"), but rather substantive portrayals and references, such as the famous scene in Jaws. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per Postdlf - meant to post this earlier but got distracted following links after reading the page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's something I'm often afflicted of myself. :P bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Straight delete there's no secondary sources for the cultural impact. As of this date stamp Jaws which is of obvious cultural impact is already in the main article, many of the other points already present. Seek secondary sources for cultural impact for the main article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fifelfoo. Nothing here is worth salvageing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge per Postdlf. A little bit of the meat here is salvagable. bahamut0013^words _deeds 22:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge back into USS Indianapolis (CA-35), where originally came from [1], and trim if necessary. Moving "in popular culture" sections into seperate articles is never a good idea; it is usually part of a cunning two-step plan to get rid of these unloved sections while avoiding discussion about it: first split them out (which is uncontroversial because the content is not deleted), and then just wait until they are nominated for deletion because they are just lists that don't work well as stand-alone articles. --memset (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we have to have a popular culture section in every article? The original assumption was that popular culture was notable while military history is not, so a popular culture section prevented your military history article from being deleted. But I have nothing but sympathy for an editor who is an expert on warships who has what he feels is a feature quality article but has no idea how to verify or reference a passing mention of his ship in an obscure novel and an unreleased movie. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MILPOP which states: "In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture." I fail to see how the entries in this article are either well-cited or have a had a notable impact on popular culture. As such I think deletion is more appropriate than merging which will only detract from the parent article (per Hawkeye). Anotherclown (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a more general version of Wikipedia:MILPOP#Popular_culture somewhere? Bulldog123 10:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm afraid. Anotherclown (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content what you're looking for? -- saberwyn 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I don't know why it was so hard for me to find that. Bulldog123 11:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it different where the cultural work actually depicts the article's subject, rather than just referencing (i.e., mentioning) it? As long as the cultural work is itself notable or by a notable creator, and the depiction is substantial. Then I don't think it's really an "in popular culture" section, but "dramatic depictions" or "fictional depictions" or something else. postdlf (talk) 14:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anotherclown and Fifelfoo and oppose remerge as that would just keep this stuff around. If someone wants to tack on a reliably-sourced prose addition to the main article they would be more than able to do so without any of this. Them From Space 06:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there have been significant dramatizations of the sinking of the Indianapolis that deal solely with the Indianapolis, or the courtmartial, and those should be documented on the popular culture list. The current entry on the Indiapolis page about JAWS is useless and should be removed. "The sinking of Indianapolis and ordeal of the survivors and subsequent rescue at sea is chronicled in the book In Harm's Way: The Sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis and the Extraordinary Story of Its Survivors by Doug Stanton, originally published in 2001. Survivor Edgar Harrell recounted his experience in the 2005 work Out of the Depths, co-authored with his son, David Harrell. Earlier accounts of the Indianapolis tragedy are Raymond Lech's All the Drowned Sailors, published in 1982, and Richard F. Newcomb's Abandon Ship! The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, the Navy's Greatest Sea Disaster, originally published in 1958 and re-published with a new introduction and afterword in 2001." should be in the Indy article, as it documents NON-FICTION about the sinking. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are non-fiction works about the sinking popular culture references? Surely they are just potential references for the article itself (assuming they're reliable)? Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a popular account of the sinking, instead of the courtmartial transcript? Or the memoirs of the sailors who survived... 65.93.13.227 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's time to make a Sinking of USS Indianapolis (CA-35) article, with the sinking and aftermath portion of the Indy article separated into the new article, with it's impact on popular culture, and enduring popularity as evidenced by the dramatizations that keep cropping up and documentary specials. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A nonfiction work could be a popular culture item if it were widely known but not researched or documented at the level needed to be a useful source for the article. This would not necessarily be a rap on the work; if there are two or more heavily referenced histories a lighter popular history is not needed as a source but may have a lot of influence on the public understanding of the event. Popular culture is broader than fictional treatments.Dankarl (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we split it off? It's already covered at the main article. If you can properly source the pop culture impacts, then cite them there. Article size isn't an issue in its current form. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a naval engagement that is notable, which had legal consequences (the courts martial), and entered popular knowledge because of the sinking. 65.94.46.54 (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That argument extends only to the necessity of coverage, which is already present, and not to the necessity of an entire article. The majority of the Indianapolis article covers the event, and to split it off would strip most of the substance (and most of the notability). Article size and readability isn't an issue, and the incident didn't really involve enough ships to be considered a battle proper. Most of the noteriety comes from the Navy's mistake on recovery, and not from the sinking itself anyway. I just can't see the need for having an independant article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or MergeThe sinking of the Indianapolis has entered into popular culture, and should be treated someplace. It should not be too hard to document; typing up proper citations to the individual works listed would be a start. Where to treat it may be a matter of policy or of editorial judgment that I'll leave to those closer to the issue.Dankarl (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia clearly unworthy of its own article.Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect or Merge. These are not popular culture manifestations, these are ordinary depictions. Abductive (reasoning) 02:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IF we are going to have a page on the pop culture relating to Indianapolis - and that's a very big if - then this page is surely a 4.0 demonstration of how not to go about creating such a page. For starts this is a list, and the material poorly cited at that. Aside from its milpop issues, the fact remains that the material present asserts no notability whatsoever. We could merge it back into the parent article, but why bother when what is presented here is not worth saving in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 20 December 2010 (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.