Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks 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 No consensus, default to Keep. (This does not prevent someone from being bold and carrying out a merge to Nighthawks.) Waltontalk 16:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nighthawks in popular culture

Nighthawks in popular culture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete - indiscriminate collection of loosely-related pieces of trivia. The items on this list have little or nothing in common beyond someone who worked on them apparently thought it would be amusing to arrange some characters in a manner that resembles the painting. Strongly oppose in advance the inevitable suggestion that this be merged into the article on the painting. It's trivial cruft on its own and would be every bit as trivial and crufty in the painting's article. Otto4711 13:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Nighthawks and reduce to demonstrably notable instances. Шизомби 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Nighthawks per User:Schizombie. feydey 14:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please cite multiple independent reliable sources that indicate that any of the items on the list are demonstrably notable. Otto4711 14:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As above I still recommend reducing the article to demonstrably notable instances when merging. These items per se are not notable, but describe the painting's importance and influence on popular culture. feydey 15:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Nighthawks The uses by other artists is the most interesting aspect of this picture. Any failures to meet Wikipedia's standards will remedied over time. Len 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Furthermore, I agree with nominator's opposition to a merger. ---TheoldanarchistComhrá 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Articles frequently have a section "X in popular culture". This is useful and valid information in a study of culture, particularly the relationship between traditionally "high" and "low" culture. It shows the wider influence of a notable artwork. No objection to merging it with Nighthawks or keeping it as a valid content fork. Tyrenius 00:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - dozens of "in popular culture" articles have been nominated and deleted over the last several months and debate about the appropriateness of such articles is ongoing. The simple existence of a type of article does not serve to justify the existence of every such article of the type. Otto4711 12:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nor does the deletion of other articles serve to justify the deletion of more. I am adding my view to the debate. Tyrenius 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, precedent is looked at in these sorts of debates, which, by the way, no one suggested you shouldn't add your view to, regardless of your view's reliance on such poor arguments as "this is useful." Otto4711 03:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge notable attested instances to Nighthawks, discard the rest. Nighthawks is one of the more important paintings of the 20th century, at least in the U.S., and it is definitely worth noting times that it has been invoked thematically, even in jest. I lean toward the idea of a paragraph approach to such mentions instead of a bullet list, since it's too easy to add any minor half-reference. Otherwise, Delete. --Dhartung | Talk 07:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, per Tyrenius, very popular painting, lots of connections to film noir, and art history. Modernist 20:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notably parodied painting. The introduction to a book of conference papers on parody uses Nighthawks as its example of parody in art, mentioning that a parody of the painting by Michael Bedard inspired a parody of its own (Parody: Dimensions and Perspectives, ed Beate Müller, ISBN 904200181X). Gerd Gemünden's Framed Visions: Popular Culture, Americanization, and the Contemporary German and Austrian Imagination discusses a number of parodies and homages, including a film by Wim Wenders and the Helnwein painting with Marilyn Monroe and James Dean. This story talks about the painting's influence, and more generally Hopper's influence, on film. The Banksy painting with the boxer-clad man throwing a chair through the diner window can certainly be sourced. The article will need some gardening, but it's not as bad as most "...in popular culture" articles I've seen. —Celithemis 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment In a way, the numerous popular culture references and spoofs speak to the notability of the painting itself. To lose that would be to lose what makes this painting notable or memorable compared to other paintings by the same artist, with the same theme, or from the same period. It would perhaps help, though, to cite to a review of a movie that references it, rather than merely to note it's in the movie. That would at least establish the reviewer thought it was notable enough to mention. Шизомби 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge(and redirect) to main Nighthawks article per Tyrenius... Ranma9617 02:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Total trivia fork article. Just an indiscriminate list. Biggspowd 21:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge the lot to Nighthawks and let the consensus there establish which instances are "notable" and which are not. I find it incomprehensible that the nominator considers the list as a whole to be "loosely-related". The common thread and the blindingly obvious cultural references are directly to the iconic painting; and far from "loose". The fact that the parody-creators (eg: The Simpsons) and direct-expositors (eg: Ferris Beuller) were inspired to the point of using the painting as part of the set make it notable. I would agree in a parallel case that every mention of or reference to the Mona Lisa in popular culture (TV, movies, books, etc. - could be hundreds of them) need not be exhaustively mentioned at that article, or in a separate article. But it would seem that a carefully screened list of, say, the top 10 or 12 cases (as determined by consensus) would make sense for inclusion (eg: The DaVinci Code). Therefore I think a goal of settling on a dozen or so instances of "Nighthawk sightings" would be appropriate at the nighthawk article. Delete after completing the merger - redirect is not needed since it is extremely unlikely anyone would go to the trouble of typing all that up in the search box to get there. --T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 15:40, 25 June 2007 (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.