Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture

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 delete all. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture

I am nominating the following "Military Hardware in Popular Culture" pages, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically, it is not a directory of prop appearances.

This follows the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A-10_Thunderbolt_II_in_popular_culture as well as the ongoing (recently nominated) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture for numerous "Firearm X in Popular culture".

While I cannot rule out the existence of an item of pop culture that prominently featured a piece of hardware in the way that Top Gun featured the F-14, none of these listed here rise to the occasion. Even if it were, it would deserve a 1-liner in the main article. A wholesale list of prop appearances is irrelevant and often speculative. What's next? Honda Accord in popular culture? Ikea furniture in popular culture? I am willing to accede that a reliable source may make a statement about the ubiquity of some piece of hardware in culture; such a statement should go in the original article. However, a comprehensive list of such appearances is unencyclopedic.

These are not articles. That much is clear. A comprehensive list is unmaintainable, difficult to verify, and ultimately original research unless the prop director can be quoted on the matter. Can they be converted to lists or categories? Given the verifiability problems and notability issues, I say not. Do we need a category for each prop?

Co-nominated:

  • M1097 Avenger in popular culture
  • M72 LAW in popular culture
  • RAH-66 Comanche in popular culture
  • Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture
  • Thermobaric weapons in popular culture

Mmx1 03:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this and all lists of random objects appearing in random series. It's not encyclopedic or necessary, and hopefully this AFD also discourages similar lists in the articles for the objects themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. (edit: including the co-nominated) Orpheus 09:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia is well known for its pop culture info. In fact, it is really only valuable as a pop culture encyclopedia. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's a real, rigorous, scientific reference source. This kind of article is the future of Wikipedia. Let it be. Billy Blythe 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed, keep. I created one of the articles in question, and contributed to several of the others. I think other people will agree with me that it would be a slap in the face to all those who gave thier time and effort for these articles to have them deleted. Personally, I think this recent rash of deleting any and all 'pop culture references' is a rather closed-minded and disturbing trend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orca1 9904 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. RexNL 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom Marcus22 21:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all —Michael Z. 2006-09-28 21:11 Z
  • Note - afd notification was not placed on FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture. Fixed now. Yomanganitalk 00:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom and A Man in Black. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. Eusebeus 13:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I found this useful. Metahacker 14:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, yes, Wikipedia is known for its pop culture info. Many of the things I've read that are critical of Wikipedia ridicule its fascination with trivia and pop culture references, and they are right to do so. It's petty and useless, and while people like Billy may not think Wikipedia has anything useful other than pop culture, I think most of us know better. Recury 17:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    Hear, hear! —Michael Z. 2006-09-29 17:28 Z
  • Delete all per nom, agreeing completely with the general sentiment. Sandstein 09:49, 2 October 2006 (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.