Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Force One in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Accusations of failing WP:NOT have not been addressed. Andy, if you wish to have a copy of the article, please let me know via my talk page. Neil  ╦  12:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Air Force One in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unacceptable (albeit short) trivia collection. Best summarized as "The president is associated with air force one, and is often portrayed as flying in it" Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I could understand deleting an article about pop culture for an aircraft of lesser significance but Air Force One is not just any other aircraft. There are movies made about it and plenty of other mentions that makes a page on its popular culture references valuable and important. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Problems with the quality of content can be fixed. Dont have it deleted because it needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What would this finished article look like? Is there any imaginable significance beyond the fact that the aircraft is associated with the presidency? Perhaps a brief remark mentioning speculated capabilities, but this comes far short of needing a separate article. --Eyrian 17:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC))


 *  Speedy Keep - I created this article because two Air Force One pages (Boeing VC-25 and Boeing VC-25) existed, and it was confusing as duplicate items were being added to both pages. Since then, two more AF1 pages have been added: VC-137C SAM 26000, and VC-137C SAM 27000. This page passed a previous AFD (2 weeks after creation), and I find it appalling that in both nominations, I was not contacted beforehand to see if there was a workable solution. Improvements were made to the article after the first nomination, namely the addition of more references. If the bullet points are objected too, the nominator could have simply been bold and done it himself, or at lest asked me to do it. I have watchlisted the article, and remove non-notable cruft in line with WP:AIR/PC's page content guidelines when they are added. I ask that this AFD be speedied on the basis that it passed the previous nomination, wtih any concerns therein being addressed, and because the article has maintained only notable entries since then. - BillCJ 17:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While merging into Air Force One might be considered, the comparative sizing of the pages leads me to suspect that unmerging would soon again be in order. Digwuren 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Last AFD was less than two months ago.  Too soon to reexamine this article. JulesH 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The last AFD closed on March 25, 2007, which, if my shoddy Math skills serve me right, was more than four months ago. Also, deletion policy states that "users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again."  Even if it had closed two months ago, that would have been completely reasonable. María ( críticame ) 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I misread it as May, and then made a slight arithmetic error.  Objection withdrawn -- there's no problem in reexamining after 4 months, IMO.  JulesH 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - note that speedy keep is not a valid option. This article is a collection of loosely associated items, collecting appearances of AF1 and of things that are called AF1 but are not AF1 and of things that in some way resemble AF1 but are again not AF1. This collection tells us nothing about AF1, nothing about the fiction which contains appearances of AF1, nothing about the real-world context of AF1. There is no encyclopedic value in a list of "in such-and-such TV show AF1 appeared." The only noteworthy appearance of AF1 in popular culture is the film of that name and it already has an article. And I'm sorry, but "keep because otherwise people will put garbage in other articles" is not a valid argument for keeping. It is never acceptable to create a garbage dump article for the purpose of keeping garbage out of another article. Otto4711 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if people would actually READ my comments. I said I created the article because duplicate items were being placed in the article, notable ones. Also, it would be nice to see you write an original objection, one that isn't a copy of the one you use for every pop-culture page AFD. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for deleting pages, and you need to come up with something better. Not ALL pop-culture mentions are garbage - some are notable, and those are the ones I've tried to keep in this article. ANd unless my opinions have violated POLICY, don't bother with your usual alphabet soup of reasons why you're allowed to use your arguments, but I'm not allowed to use mine. Btw, I still haven't seen you removing "garbage" from any of the 1700 regular atricles I watchlist, something I spend a good portion of my Wiki-day doing. Is it the garbage OK as long as it's on a regular page? If cruft is as bad as you make it out to be, I give you a long list of articles where we need good editors to hlp fight cruft. But that's not your real issue, is it? (I would delete it is all, but it's been commented on. Might be borderlline violation of NPA, which is policy. Anyway, it is frustrating to seen the same editrs vote delete for the smae exact reasons on articles which vary widely in there notability content.) - BillCJ 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I purge articles whenever I stumble upon them. Feel free to leave a list on my talk page, and I'll take care of it. --Eyrian 18:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Try watching V-22 Osprey for starters. The Simpsons' movie is added about twice a day! I'll add more as they occur. THanks for volunteering. - BillCJ 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did read your comments. I read them the last time you made them in the last AFD. I'm sorry you're having such a severe over-reaction to my comments, but the sort of venom you're spraying around here seems more than a little unwarranted. Nor am I going to get into a "My watchlist is bigger than your watchlist" pissing contest because it is in no way relevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether or not this article violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would appreciate it in future if you would confine your remarks to that topic and refrain from going off on personal tangents. Otto4711 19:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not "venom", but frustration. But I do have one questions for you: Is there such a thing as nontable pop-culture? Because we certianly have a disagreement about what is notable. THis is not the Helicopters is popular culture page, which was FULL of cruft, yet I can't see how your comments would differ (I don't remeber if you participated in that one, and don't have the time to look.) And I'm not comparing watchlists, only stating my workload here whatching articles for cruft. Finally, I have worked very hard to make sure this article does follow notability guidelines, and I do get tired of your treating me like I don't at every AFD. WP:AGF would be nice every once in a while. And that is policy. - BillCJ 19:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'mm not going to comment on this any further here. I don't want this to become any sort of issue in the AFD because it's not relevant. Otto4711 19:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Speedy keep is always an option, per WP:SNOW, when consensus for it exists. Clearly it doesn't here, but it was a reasonable suggestion at the time the editor made it. JulesH 19:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You think WP:SNOW was justified after two comments? --Eyrian 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's quite common for people to !vote "speedy keep", and it sometimes even happens. To say that it is "not valid" is certainly contrary to practice and even maybe contrary to policy. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was basing it on the previous AFD's passing, with a bit of wishfull thinking thrown in. Still, it would be nice to have an editor discuss his concerns before nominating - if the goal is to get rid of the article, a merge could have been completed long before the AFD will finish. As the primary editor of the page (because mostly crufters have added material since creation), we wouldn't need any other concensus. However, the main problem is which articles to place what items, because some deal with the title AF1, and some the aircraft (with 3 aircraft articles now). That's why I went with a seprate page in the first place. However, even if the AFD passes, I will probably merge the info somewhere, as it's obvious it's just going to keep being nominated every few months. It might be diffetrent if the page was now full of a bunch of non-notable or game appearances, but it's not. It has improved some since the last nomination, but it's not changed enough to really justify a second AFD. If you don't like pop-culture articles in general, get them banned! But this AFD-war is not the way to go. Serious editors need to be able tp create sub-pages of articles when they get unwieldy, and we do that all the time in WP:AIR, not just with trivia, but for variants, history, operators, etc. I'd like to see all pop-culture banned altogether, especially since the only place it is apparently allowed now is in the main articles. But that seems to be OK with many editor who just don't want sub-pages for trivia/pop-culture, but could care less about it elsewhere, since it's not a problem they deal with. - BillCJ 19:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by references in secondary, independent sources. Until the concept of "Air Force One in popular culture" is discussed in such a source, it is not notable. This is because, without such a source, it isn't verifiable. --Eyrian 19:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 18:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see what makes something "loose" and another topic "tight". Is there a better definition? Is planes in PC loose, and Air Force one tight? It seems there is just a wave of deletions of PC articles using this phrase, but there is no clear definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were a clear definition, there would be no reason to debate. --Eyrian 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This distinction is being used as a reason to delete, so it is perfectly reasonable to ask those using them to explain what they mean by them.  I can explain what I mean by tight -- in this context,  it means having a common principal or important  theme. Do you agree with that? DGG (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no possible definition that's going to apply in all cases, obviously. In this instance, it's reasonable IMHO to look at the items on the list and ask how a person would rank it as a factor of the source material. Would someone thinking about The West Wing, for instance, think about the appearance of AF1 in several episodes as a characteristic of the series? Would someone consider the show NCIS in terms of the appearance of AF1 in a single episode? Accepting for the sake of argument DGG's "common principal or important theme," is AF1 a theme of any importance in TWW or NCIS or 24? A theme of such importance that listing them together makes thematic sense? Otto4711 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it." I actually disagree with your definition. I would propose something that quantizes how easily things can be understood in relation to each other. Carding is a subprocess of Spinning, thus making them tightly intertwined, and the latter cannot be fully understood without the latter; they have a navbox linking them. Maximilian armour and White armour are two ways of doing the same thing, they provide informative contrast to each other; they are linked by a category. The entries in this article are linked only by minor thematic elements, and should be linked only by the "What links here" function of "Air Force One". --Eyrian 21:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are good arguments, but they aren't in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The standard here, as in the WP:AIR and MILHIST guidleines on pop-culture, is the notability of the individiual items. WIth the exception of the NCIS appearence (which I've removed severeal times, but had no backing on), these appearences in which AF1 plays a crucial role in the plot, or in culture. You are adding some other standard of notablility to the article as a whole which is not required anywhere on Wikipedia. If it were, then such articles would be banned, but they aren't. This is tacit, if not explicit, permission to have such articles. Get the banned, and I'll gladly AFD every pop-culture article I see or know of. Until then, why not try to work with us to make the articles better? AF1 is a common subject, and I imagine there are articles or books on it's effects in culture that could be referenced. To be honest, I hadn't thought of improving it in that direction. It too bad no one else thought of it either, and brought it up on the article's talk page. - BillCJ 22:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I see your WP:NOT, Jay32183, and raise you WP:NOT. María ( críticame ) 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I call both WP:NOT & WP:NOT. Eusebeus 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - even though it is a rather small article. Onnaghar(T/C) 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This material is not part of popular culture? or is it that WP does not over popular culture? There's no basis for objecting, since collections of related information is exactly what encyclopedias are for. DGG (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Please do not throw out strawmen, especially two in the same comment.  Nobody is saying that this material is not popular culture and nobody said that WP does not cover pop culture.  However, this material is not notable popular culture.  Air Force One is the president's personal airplane.  Of course it's going to be featured in almost every element of popular culture that features the president.  How is that notable? CaveatLectorTalk 22:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * that's not what strawman arguments mean. they mean taking an item that is clearly unsuportable, and saying -- this is the sort of thing that's in there. It wont stand, and neither will the whole. (or, for that matter taking the one item that is clearly supportable, and saying -- this one is good, lets keep them all). You accept that WP covers popular culture. does it cover the themes that popular cultural artifacts talk about?? If so, do they get to be discussed in articles about individual artifacts, or also in articles about the themes?DGG (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, a Straw man argument is forcing upon your 'opponent' in a debate or discussion an easily refutable position that they do not have. Which is what you did.  WP covers pop culture and it can discuss the impact that a theme that has impacted pop culture, but it is not meant to list every single instance of this theme.  CaveatLectorTalk 21:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, there have been entire movies made about this plane. Clearly it holds a very a notable place in popular culture, the other alternative is to put all this into the main article. Which would significantly increase the length, much better how it is done now. Mathmo Talk 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw an entire movie about a toaster once. Maybe you should go and start Toasters in popular culture based on your reasoning. Crazysuit 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only notable references are the two films mentioned, the rest of the appearances are trivia. WP:NOT loosely associated trivial appearances/mentions of an airlplane. Crazysuit 01:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, since the article was split off from the main AF1 article, there has been a constant see-saw of appearances of AF1 in popular culture being added, and those items being deleted. If there are only a handful of noteable appearances, there's no reason it shouldn't be folded back into the main article.  Either the article should be a lot larger and include things that have been deleted as "gamecruft" (are video games not popular culture?) or "non-notable" (including TV shows in which the aircraft plays a major plot role), or it should be part of the article it was split off from.CruiserBob 02:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge notable items, delete the rest and the page - It's obvious that this is an issue that will never go away, especially if there is no clear concensus - someone else will nominate it again in forur months, and again, and again . . . In light of that fact, I propoes to merge the especially-notable items to the Air Force One page, with redirects in the aircraft articles. The remaining items should be deleted, ans should this page. I know ther is a rule about leaving a redirect for merged items, but since they were originally on the AF1 page, should that rule apply in this case? What's wrong with making the crufters works a little harder to find where to put their cruft? I'd rather delelte all of it, as I don't like ANY pop-culture references in non-related articles. However, I will be proposing a ban on all pop-culture, either at the project or Wiki-wide level, very soon. - BillCJ 02:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge etc., as per BillCJ. Couldn't have put it any better myself. - fchd 05:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By that standard, ALL pop-culture appearances should be deleted. I do wish you were right, because I would be able to take the pop-culture sections out of several hundred aircraft articles. Unfourtunately, it is not so. Pop-culture appearances are allowed if the they are notable appearances, per WP:ATRIV, and WP:AIR/PC and MILHIST page content guidelines. - BillCJ 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Project recommendations simply do not count. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, and that's precisely what these references are. --Eyrian 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing ALL "pop-culture" references lists of this sort from Wikipedia would be a step in the right direction if you ask me. Burntsauce 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We should ask for a clarification on the policy regarding trivia and pop-culture, and the 5 Pillars, because there is definitely a difference of interpretation of the issue. Trust me, if these two projects thought Wikipedia policy forbid such items, they WOULD enforce that! - BillCJ 18:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two views put forth for deleting these articles: one is that items should be listed only if sourced, which is reasonable--and then we should move into a discussion of how to get them sourced. the other is that the material would not be encyclopedic even if sourced. That can't be compromised, because those having the view are saying that popular culture is not important even if there are sources for the notability of it, and WP should not cover it. That would, in my eye, be radically changing the nature of the encyclopedia.  Its built on popular culture. I would like to know which way different people stand on that, not to get personal, but to sort out the arguments.
 * Burntsauce, are you asking for the removal of all popular culture, regardless of where it appears?
 * Eyrian, what do you include in triva, that you want it out even if it is sourced?

DGG (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the articles like this are collections of loosely associated topics and fail WP:NOT. There is no way to remedy this. The only reason these exist in the first place is a better here than in the main article thinking. Jay32183 00:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The setting: an airplane. If a movie or TV show has an American president, and he flies in a jet plane with "The United States of America" written on it, you're seeing Air Force One.  Other than the Harrison Ford movie and the NCIS pilot, this is essentially a list of films with a movie set or a miniature prop.  Mandsford 01:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A collection of loosely associated topics. Saikokira 03:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - when an aircraft becomes so iconic that it impacts pop culture, that's a legitimate subject to note in an encyclopedia article.  AK Radecki Speaketh  18:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that there's no evidence of said impact, other than movies/TV shows/books showing that the President of the United States doesn't fly Business Class on Continental when he wants to get out of Washington. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete having many references does not make a notable phenomenon in popular culture; I cannot count the number of times the word "the" is used in various pop culture places but that doesn't make its use a notable pop culture phenomenon. Carlossuarez46


 * Keep* < I voter for keep Supra guy 01:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. While it's rubbish at the minute that is no reason to delete it. We have lots of rubbish articles. There is potentially material for an article here, even if a fairly trivial one. And please note that 'WP:BHTT' is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. The Land 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is that the article is a collection of loosely associated topics, which is based on policy, WP:NOT. The mention of WP:BHTT is a counter argument refuting the keep, not a reason to delete. The problem with the article is not one that can be fixed. Even if an appropriate article could be written with this title, it would not include any of the current content. Jay32183 20:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the topics are linked by the fact that they all refer to Air Force One. I think RMS Titanic in popular culture is definitely the right side of the line; this one is a shade the right side, and certainly not so far over it that it has to be deleted. The Land 20:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Referring to Air Force One is a loose association. All articles of this type are on the side of the line for which deletion is the only option. If you want an article about Air Force One in popular culture, then get sources for "Air Force One in popular culture" not sources for "Air Force One" and then putting a pop culture spin on it. That would be original research. Jay32183 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless rubbish tip of trivia. Brief mention in Air Force One, sure, but this? No. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Non-rubbish and definitely noteworthy. An entire film has been made that revolves around the plane. Also had big parts in 'Independence Day', 'Escape from New York' to name some. TruthCrusader 09:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone else pointed out above, there has been a whole movie about a toaster. Maybe someone should start Toasters in popular culture? Spellcast 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Listing every single mention of this plane is clearly indiscriminate info ("oh look, I spotted the plane in some episode of 24"). There has to be multiple, reputable sources that acknowledges every mention of the plane and not just the show/song/book. For example, there's multiple, reliable sources asserting that the press dubbed the term "Blair Force One", but there can never me multiple, reputable sources that do the same thing for the other mentions (apart from the show/song/book itself). Spellcast 18:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as it stands, this article is pretty clearly original research - the sources are all primary. If an article such as this were a digest of secondary sources discussing aspects of the topic (Air Force One in popular culture), then it's valid by policy; if it's a catalogue of incidence, then it's not. I'm not saying delete because I find it hard to believe that this article couldn't be written the right way. SamBC 02:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The effort people put into an article has no meaning at an AFD, WP:EFFORT. In addition, we should always try to solve problems we come across. This is the discussion on the matter. Saying "Keep because we need to have a discussion on the matter" is just plain wrong. Jay32183 18:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:EFFORT is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is a particularly shite essay that should be burned and salted. For my money that fact that a volunteer, in good faith, thought that something was sufficiently encyclopedic to be worth actually doing the work on trumps every time the opinion of some dork at AfD who may have put up to ninety seconds of thought into his delete vote. Further, suggesting that I am failing to, and I quote, "try to solve the problem" when I am the one volunteering to take these articles into my userspace and deal with them is particulary offensive, and I should be grateful if you would avoid insulting me in that way again. AndyJones 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some one putting effort into something he or she should not have been doing is meaningless, and encouraging the behavior by not correcting them is wholly inappropriate. I think you should not put in in your userspace because this is a problem that cannot be fixed. When an article fails WP:NOT there really is nothing you can do. If you fell insulted then you do not understand the situation. Deletion is the only solution and any action to prevent the deletion is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. People who want to make these kinds of articles should be doing so in a place other than Wikipedia, and we have no obligation to aide those other places. Jay32183 22:42, 6 August 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.