Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helicopters 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 delete. This is not actually an article- it's basically "List of times a helicopter has appeared in cinema, video games, and television", organized by helicopter type rather than the usual fare of a random bulleted list. The only non-list text is "The Helicopter has unique characteristics which have led to it being featured in films, video games, and other media", and this has no citation. If someone wants to create an actual verifiable article explaining the use of helicopters in popular culture, the effect, the desired intent, etc, then they are free to do so. However, a list of appearances in media is not appropriate.-Wafulz 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Pure trivia, and a violation of WP:FIVE - This has become to place to document the use of helicopters in movies & tv shows & video games Corpx 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is clearly trivia. It is clearly stated in the manual of style not to create lists of loosely related information. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I am impressed with the sheer comprehensiveness of the list, one might as well write an article about Cheeses in popular culture. Iknowyourider (t c) 15:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:*Was Cheese ever featured in an Academy-award nominated movie? A helicopter wasCanuckle 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I propose Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. See also Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and Stinking Bishop cheese.  Cheers, Iknowyourider (t c) 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ILOVEIT. Why didn't I see it. First their trip to the moon was cheese, then the full moon leads to the whole lycanthropy thing. Of course, there's the poem] and Mayor McCheese and the TV series and the movie they made two floors down from me. And it's all sourceable like with this newspaper article Films with cheese. :) Canuckle 01:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article was started by some heavy contributers to the avaition project. The material was moved here because it doesn't belong in the regular articles. And, yes, as it says at the top of the article, it is a place to document the use of helicopters in movies & tv shows, a significant part of some heli businesses and of movie budgets. Meggar 22:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct response to horrible cruft that doesn't belong in articles is to delete it, not create an article for it. --Haemo 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can see how this would be important to people in the industry. But are there sources that verify and analyze it? Canuckle 00:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - this article is not about Helicopters in popular culture; it is not even an article. It is a grab-bag of trivia about any mention or appearance of a helicopter in TV, film, music or what-have you.  --Haemo 23:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is an encyclopedic list, sorted by helicopter type. Dhaluza 15:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Shame to see such a body of work disappear. Topic is too broad and the list is too crufty. You could narrow it down -- provided there are sources to demonstrate notability and comparisons -- to Shows about helicopters for Blue Thunder (nominated for Academy Award for best editing), Airwolf or The Helicopter Spies . And there might be an article in Helicopter use in filming (to hold the camera and as prop) or Helicopter accidents in filming. But those are a long way away from the current content which is a very comprehensive list of helicopters seen in movies. Canuckle 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think the page could serve a useful purpose, but only as an article about appearances where helicopters play a significant role in a culturally notable piece of work, and how their unique characteristics make them particularly suitable in roles that could not be filled by other vehicles. "Airwolf" and "Blue Thunder" are excellent examples.  In its current state it's nothing more than a refuse bin for every appearance that keeps getting deleted from an individual helicopter's entry. - Reverend Ted  03:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete -- Possibly THE WORST In popular culture list on Wikipedia. Copter fan watches movie, copter fan spots a helicopter, copter fan adds it to Wikipedia. This is classic WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics, it's just a list of unconnected films that happen to have (miscellaneous) helicopters in them. Saikokira 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - this is not the "trivia list" but excellens source of knowledge for all those who want to check where helicopter were portrayed / shown. Of course most of info from that article can be posted back to main articles but this will not help those who are trying to get all those info in one place. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski 21:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Still sounds like argument to avoid It's Useful.Canuckle 05:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I concur with Piotr. If ths article is deleted, then we must delete all pop culture and trivia related articles, sections within articles (many aircraft and naval ships and cars and vehicle and recorded music articles have extensive pop culture and trivia sections), and all the related categories of pop culture. This would be a major undertaking... nomatter what the topic or physical item in our society, there is a relationship to popular culture or "real Americana"! LanceBarber 04:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Masaruemoto 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete; WP:NOT of loosely associated topics; WP:NOT; WP:FIVE Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Very poor, just a laundry list of personal observations. An example of how not to put together an "In Popular Culture" article. Masaruemoto 06:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a directory of loosely associated topics. The listed items have nothing in common other than there's a helicopter in 'em. Otto4711 12:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

 * Strong Keep As with the prior commentator, I had expected to find little more than a list of movies that had a helicopter scene. Sadly, most IPC articles really are a list of "shows with a _____ in 'em".  Having looked at the article, however, I see that it is written by someone who has a familiarity with the manufacturers of this variety of aircraft.  Most of us have heard of a Cobra or an Apache, but wouldn't know what it looked like.  This type of list is far better than trying to places images and videos on Wikipedia.  Every "in popular culture" article has to be evaluated on its merits, rather than on how we feel about lists.  This is a keeper.  Mandsford 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The helicopter as an icon is a given to show up in TV and movies, and it is the intent of this article to document which models show up where. The use of helicopters in productions is a major segment of the helicopter industry, and this list could easily be expanded to document more of that; however, the fact that it has not yet been expanded isn't a reason for deletion. AK Radecki Speaketh  14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is the result of a reasonable editorial decision to group references to helicopters in a compendium article, rather than scattering them through the individual helicopter make/model articles. This is decision that has a broad consensus among those involved in editing the articles, and should not be overturned by a rough consensus at an AfD. Dhaluza 15:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a trivia collection per WP:FIVE. That's the bigger consensus Corpx 20:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is not a trivia collection, it's an encyclopedic list organized by aircraft type. If it contains trivia, then that should be deleted, not the entire article. I don't buy the argument that all lists related to pop culture are trivia and should be expunged. Dhaluza 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as it is full of trivia and listcruft. Now for the appearences on films, maybe it can be mention in each of the helicopters article, but that's a suggestion I am proposing only.--JForget 15:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very few of these appearances are significant enough to warrant inclusion in a given aircraft's article. Most of them are just places where a helicopter shows up briefly, as opposed to playing a critical role in the plot. - Reverend Ted  22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe most of the entries were originally in the individual helicopter articles, and were painstakingly merged here because they would be more encyclopedic and easier to maintain together, rather than sprinkled around. The objections to mixing fictional references with factual articles also has merit, and the merge is a reasonable editorial decision in light of this. If this article is deleted, they will just start reappearing in the individual articles again, which is not a desirable outcome. Dhaluza 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The work may have been "painstaking" but they forgot to include sources, a claim to notability or a link/description within the individual helicopter's article (in the handful I checked). Canuckle 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Needs to be cut back drastically, but no need to throw out the baby with the cruftwater. - BillCJ 16:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keeps popular culture information in one place rather than each article where. MilborneOne 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection per WP:FIVE Corpx 20:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Is it simply a collection of trivia? It seems that even in the arguments to delete there is an admission that within all the "cruft" there is the makings of a genuine article. That seems reason enough to keep it with an appropriate tag for Expert help. If it is unreferenced, there is a tag for that. I don't have the vision for that, but I'm willing to allow the opportunity for those who do. --Born2flie 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep for reasons stated above especially their actual use in film/production and not fitting on other articles.Cholga is a SUPERSTAR ¡Talk2Cholga! Sexy Contribs 00:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That does not mean it should be split into a new article.  Corpx 01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * delete This isn't even an IPC article, it's just a list of unrelated films/videogames/etc that contain scenes with helicopters, ANY helicopters. Mostly unverifiable as well, just relying on the "knowledge" or honesty of any passing editor who chooses to add to the list. Crazysuit 04:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per other arguments using WP:FIVE. And perhaps provide a link on Helicopter to the site which is obviously being used as a reference source on the article in question. --Russavia 20:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with strong reservations. The article's current content is a loosely-associated list of trivia and should be moved to Talk page as users develop the article's content using sources to demonstrate notable depictions and non-OR review of depictions in culture. There are a lot of helicopter sources out there and it's not all about supercharged turbo engines and exhaust manifold additions. Helicopters are iconic to the degree that they have their own conspiracy theory: Black helicopters, which should be included in this topic. And I think sources are out there to develop the article. However, the current content is a long way from being where it needs to be. There seems to be little interest by copter editors to improve a stand-alone article to the required level. The motivation seems to be protecting the individual articles from trivia. I added 5 sourced sentences to the Bell 47 article setting the context for the Bell 47's "definitive" TV series Whirlybirds (25 million weekly viewers) and the MASH (film) and M*A*S*H (TV series). The goal was a minimal, sourced assertion of notability on the copter article to refer readers to this article. The changes were reverted as 'unnecessary, over detailed info found elsewhere'. That "elsewhere" seems to be this to-be-deleted article as neither MASH article even says the words Bell 47. The copter article will show a photo of the Bell in "MASH" colours but apparently non-nuts-and-bolts content is non-notable for individual articles. Content requiring clean-up and poor participation by editors are arguments to avoid in deletion but I do question whether the article will improve. Canuckle 23:39, 23 July 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.