| Revision as of 10:17, 28 September 2006 editMacGyverMagic (talk | contribs)44,753 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:13, 28 September 2006 edit undoBilly Blythe (talk | contribs)319 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| *'''Delete''' per nom. (edit: including the co-nominated) ] 09:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. (edit: including the co-nominated) ] 09:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *See my comment at ]. - ]|] 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | *See my comment at ]. - ]|] 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Strong keep.''' Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Let it be. ] 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:13, 28 September 2006
FIM-92 Stinger in popular culture
I am nominating the following "Military Hardware in Popular Culture" pages, because Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically, it is not a directory of prop appearances.
This follows the AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/A-10_Thunderbolt_II_in_popular_culture as well as the ongoing (recently nominated) Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture. - Mgm| 10:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Let it be. Billy Blythe 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)