Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. B. Cooper 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   keep.  MBisanz  talk 01:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

D. B. Cooper in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

appears to be a cover for trivia. incorporate relevant details into the D. B. Cooper article. See Trivia sections. Aurush kazemini (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE Agreed, looks like random trivia better rolled into D.B. Cooper article -- or simply dropped altogether. The "in popular culture" sections in articles are generally just fanservice cruft anyway. SmashTheState (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs to be edited not deleted. His legacy has been notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment sure, thats why it can be discussed in the D.B. Cooper article. Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have any problem with a merge discussion on the article's talk page after it's kept. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -or- Merge: Belongs in a trivia section in the article for D.B. Cooper. D.B. Cooper is notable, his mentions in popular culture reinforce that notability, but do not themselves inherit his notability unless they themselves are provably notable. Since that starts getting into a serious cyclical nightmare with chicken-in-egg connotations, situations like this seem best served by placing the popular cultural references in some sort of trivia section in the parent article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Trivia sections are discouraged, because it is better for material on the reception and use of such figures when extensive to have its own article. Popular culture is real; the occurrence of notable figures in it in significant ways is encyclopedic information, and an article of this sort is the place to put the material. As long as the mention is in a significant way in a notable work, the inclusion of the content is suitable. there is no need for each individual fact in an article to be individually notable--it just has to be relevant. Their occurrence an all be verified. If it is argued that any one instance isn't correct or important enough, that';s a matter for editing.DGG (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment trivia is real too, so is popular culture trivia. if it's not worth mentioning in the main article, it's probably not worth mentioning in a trivia article. Aurush kazeminitalk 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge DB Cooper has relevance in popular culture. 76.66.198.171 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC).
 * Comment ...and that relevance can be mentioned in the D.B. cooper article Aurush kazeminitalk 04:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge. Definite trivia section, there's no reason it can't be integrated with main article. Bolwerk (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research assembled by Wikipedia editors. WillOakland (talk) 05:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's trivia which makes it unencyclopedic.Strummingbabe (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There are some cases where a real person lives on in legend, such as Jesse James, Jimmy Hoffa or Adolf Hitler, and the two aspects should be kept separate. This doesn't belong in the D.B. Cooper article, and merging the legends with the facts is something I would oppose.  The article is slightly better than the usual i.p.c. page, so only a weak keep, but the legend is notable enough for its own page. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt D. B. Cooper's cultural significance, which has been discussed in published sources. But this list makes scarce effort to work from such sources, and instead like so many IPC lists it's just a mishmash of "things I saw the other day." We don't need this list, we need a reliably sourced discussion of the cultural phenomenon in the main article, which is what I've just written. WillOakland (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge anything salvagable to D.B. Cooper since most of the notability is in essence the popular culture. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines as having recieved "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Unless there has been adequate documentation of D.B. Cooper's appearances in popular culture by independant sources that analyze the appearances, then the subject isn't notable enough for its own article.  As the article stands, it is nothing but a collection of triviacruft and has no focus.  Just because an article is a spinout doesn't mean its exempt from Wikipedia's guidelines.  The most prominent points can be merged back into the main article, but keep in mind even that is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. Themfromspace (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is not clear how these items could be integrated into the existing D.B. Cooper article per Trivia sections. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to coverage in published books and as the nomination actually calls for a merge (“incorporate relevant details into the D. B. Cooper article”). This discussion is listed under articles for deletion; merge discussions should take place on the article’s talk page.  Otherwise “reasons” for deletion are essentially WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, i.e. not policy or guideline based, but personal, subjective “I don’t like it” opinion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some good examples of D.B. Cooper in popular culture in that search string, but I can't find anything written about D.B. Cooper in popular culture. Remember, to satisfy the notability guidelines, the subject of the article must be written about in third-party publications in a reasonable amount of detail (ie: not a passing trivial mention). Unless you can find sources analying D.B. Cooper's appearance in popular culture rather than just talking about D.B. Cooper or listing examples of D.B. Cooper in popular culture, than the article fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article meets WP:N because the sources in the search string provide non-trivial third party references to him in popular culture that justify at worst a merge and redirect. See for example here.  Deletion is an extreme last resort and there's nothing to suggest that we can't improve this article or merge and redirect.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That source doesn't discuss D.B. Cooper in popular culture at all. It only talks about him as a person.  It would satisfy the notability guidelines for the article on D.B. Cooper, but not for D.B. Cooper in popular culture  This article needs sources documenting the relationship between different appearances of D.B. Cooper in popular culture, not just examples of him being in popular culture.  That's the difference between WP:V and WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not true. The sources says, "Popular songs and books were written about him, and a feature film The Pursuit of D.B. Cooper..." and so on, i.e. it discusses his prevalence in a variety of popular culture mediums.  Thus, the subject is both verifiable and notable, which is partially why thousands of people read the article every month.  There's no reason not to at worst redirect to D.B._Cooper with the edit history intact to check for mergeable content, but clearly it is a subject of note that far more members of our community think worthwhile than a handful of deletes in a snapshot in time five day discussion.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, that's verification that the topic exists, not evidence of its notability. Notability requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail".  A passing mention that books were written about him isn't enough to meet WP:N.  If there was an academic study done on D.B. Cooper's appearances on popular culture, that would easily meet WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Being covered in multiple paragraphs in published books equals notability. That is hardly a passing reference and that's just one example.  Looking through the search strings we find many more examples and again, they are at worst sufficient for a merge and redirect.  And yes, his impact in popular culture has been covered at length in scholarly works.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentto User:A Nobody It does not call for a merge, it says there should be a delete and if there is any relevant information, it should be placed in the D. B. Cooper article D. B. Cooper in popular culture is inherently against wikipedia policy laid down WP:TRIVIA; that said, a merge is better than a keep Aurush kazeminitalk 03:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not possible. See Merge and delete.--chaser (away) - talk 06:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Placing information from one article into another article is exactly what a "merge" is; and WP:TRIVIA is not Wikipedia policy, nor does it call for deletion. If you agree that a merge is acceptable, then please withdraw your nomination, because actual Wikipedia policy is that alternatives to deletion (such as merging) are preferred to deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to be necessary regardless...the introductory paragraph is the notable part, and it's already covered in d.b. cooper; for the rest, the only useful pieces of material are the primary and secondary sources; the disjointed list of trivia is still WP:TRIVIA; merge if you want, but delete still makes more sense, and D. B. Cooper in popular culture is hardly an encyclopedic topic by itself Aurush kazeminitalk 06:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You have perhaps missed the point made and citations given by A Nobody above, one of which is: And yes, his impact in popular culture has been covered at length in scholarly works. TJRC (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The sources shown above show that the topic is notable. Anything else is an editing issue and should be resolved on the article's talk page. DHowell (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * no one is disputing that D. B. Cooper is very, very notable; D. B. Cooper in popular culture is still a cover for trivia Aurush kazeminitalk 03:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic of D.B. Cooper's influence on popular culture has been noted and significantly discussed in independent reliable sources. Yes D.B. Cooper is very, very notable; "D.B. Cooper in popular culture" is just notable. Calling it "trivia", on the other hand, is just another way of saying "just unencyclopedic" or "I don't like it". DHowell (talk)


 * Strong Keep. The D.B. Cooper hijacking gripped the imagination of many writers and musicians, and this is reflected in the works set out in this article.  The suggestion to delete is flawed in many respects:
 * It conflates popular culture with trivia. They're not the same.  The guideline WP:TRIVIA and essays WP:IPC and WP:Handling trivia are helpful here.
 * Even if it were trivia, the appropriate response to trivia lists is not to delete, but to better integrate. "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections..." (WP:TRIVIA).   "Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created." (WP:Handling trivia).
 * At best, this is a call to prune the article to significant works as opposed to passing references; and perhaps to rewrite it in a more prose style. (Personally, I don't share the aversion that Wikipedia has for presenting information in list form. I think it's often very helpful, and paragraphs of prose are much harder to skim than lists; but I recognize that this is a minority view, or at least one that's not frequently expressed.) TJRC (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That there is a documented Cooper phenomenon does not fix the basic problem of this article, which is that it is a list of "things I saw the other day" and therefore original research. If it is kept, I will immediately remove everything that isn't cited to secondary sources (which means there will be a movie, a song, and maybe something else). Even at the main article now, people are taking the new section as an invitation to add "something I saw" crap. WillOakland (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Removing everything that is not cited, as you threaten, would be the epitome of a WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point violation. Most of the listed works are not in any sense WP:OR; they're self-supporting.  If you insist on citations, add them; don't threaten.
 * As far as the D.B. Cooper article goes, the main template had been removed when this article was created. I re-added that and that should help slow that down.  In any event, low-quality edits to D.B. Cooper are not an argument to delete D. B. Cooper in popular culture..
 * I'm not saying every mention of every work listed in the article should be kept. The "passing references" should be dropped.  But you've been arguing for deletion, not improvement of the article.  You'll find a lot less resistance to a proposal to edit and improve the quality than you will to a proposal to delete it based on what is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TJRC (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2009 (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.