Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy assassination 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 no consensus. There is a nearly even divide between keep and delete and a week's worth of discussion has not moved the center of debate significantly to one side or the other. Daniel Case 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original Research Piperdown 01:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Somehow I hosed up this AFD and I don't know how to fix it. Piperdown 02:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed, not sure what went wrong in the first place. A space before the afd2 might have been the culprit? cab 02:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep This is part of many articles spun off from the main article about the JFK assassination, created because it's a topic of its own. November 22, 1963 is pretty well off limits, as with December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. Mandsford 02:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep is an invalid !vote. Delete, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA, virtually unsourced.  Anything with such POV entries as novel is an enjoyable example of the vast library of Holmes pastiches deserves deletion.  Corvus cornix 03:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is okay to !vote speedy keep but this doesn't qualify as such. Morgan Wick 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. What I should have said was the speedy keep is an invalid !vote in this case.  Corvus cornix 03:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; The significance of the event doesn't make the trivial references to it significant. There are going to be thousands of references to such a famous event in popular culture. Example; "In the 2005 skateboard video "Thrasher King of the Road", Geoff Rowley did a line down the road on which John Kennedy was assassinated.". The rest of the examples aren't much more meaningful. Masaruemoto 03:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another invalid vote Speedy keep, it's obvious that this topic deserves a particular article, since the variety of adaptions of Kennedy assassination. It's true, that thanks to the significance of the assassination that make it's widely adapted in books, films, music etc. Thus it makes the topic "... in popular culture" significant and remarkably notable. I don't see anything of this article to be considered as POV or trivia. Also, this article lies in the streaming of "Cultural depictions of ...." or "... portrayal in media" (e.g. Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln). If we delete it, we have to consider all other articles of the same type.  A  W  03:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Opinion does not explain why this would be a case of speedy keep.
 * But all or nothing is this case.  A  W  08:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup Notable event with a number of very notable depictions or references in popular art forms. List is long enough to give compelling reason to spin off from original article. Chubbles 04:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep some few ... in popular culture articles are justified by the material and the intrinsic multi-generational importance. This is one of them. DGG 04:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Appleworm. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. origional research.-- Sef rin gle Talk 05:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim the cruft. --Haemo 09:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Chubbles. RandomCritic 11:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is yet another directory of loosely associated topics. The items on the list do not gain notability for depicting or in some way referencing the JFK assassination, and the notion that the assassination somehow becomes more culturally significant because it's referenced in episodes of Seinfeld or parodied in music videos demonstrates a fundamental failure to grasp history, not to mention being somewhat insulting. There could I'm sure be an encyclopedic article written on this topic but this "ooh, look, a JFK assassination reference" collection of crap is not it. No one would suggest that the assassination itself is not notable. That does not mean that every single reference to it is, and of course no topic "deserves" an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements or rewards. Otto4711 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Who say this article is any kind of "entitlement or reward" or "collection of crap"? Does it mean that FBI portrayal in the media also a CoC? To be honest, I find this comment rather an insult to all the writers who contribute to this article (though I'm not one of them). The topic becomes significant and notable because Kennedy assassination is so notable that it offers a huge number of depictions, that's why "KA in popular culture" is notable enough to stand as an article. Some items on the list are not notable don't make the overall article not notable. If you find "some items" that are too peddling, just remove them. The article needs some fixing and trimming, according to other suggestions above, but not being deleted just because of "some items" or being biasedly considered "collection of crap".  A  W  16:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My entitlement comment was in response to the all-too-often voiced notion that bad articles should be retained because the topic of the article "deserves" to have an article. Generally speaking, if an article is called "Blah in popular culture" and the body of the article is composed almost entirely of "In TV show XYZ, character A says 'Blah' to character B" or "The glug scene in movie QTD is an obvious parody of Blah" or "Band Such-and-such mentions Blah in the lyrics of their song Not About Blah" then it's a collection of crap. I am not interested in trimming or pruning this article of its non-notable entries because it is my opinion that all of the entries are non-notable in the context of the historical event. Knowing that a number of otherwise unrelated TV shows or music videos or whatever have referenced or parodied or otherwise mentioned the JFK assassination does not tell us anything about the assassination, the cultural impact of the assassination, the various pieces of fiction from which the references are drawn or the world around us. Otto4711 17:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And to answer your question about the FBI article, it doesn't really matter what that article is like because the existence or status of other articles is not relevant to the existence of this one. Each article stands or falls on its own. Otto4711 17:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That same rationale should be applied to the current witch-hunt of "in popular culture" articles. The deletion of articles like this one has no bearing on this particular article's merits. Chubbles 19:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Characterizing the AFDs of those articles as a "witch hunt" is a failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify, firstly, a lot of people use the word "deserve" in the meaning of "the topic is notable enough to stand as a particular article". It's a way of writing and no deduction that the topic must be an "entitlement or reward" should be concluded just from a narrow sense of the word. Secondly, you seem to get trouble with identifying the notability of the topic "... in pop culture" and the notability of the entries in the article. It's true that some (but not all) of the entries are non-notable, but it doesn't make the whole article become a colletion of crap. The initial aim of the article is to show the readers the widespread depictions of JFK assass in pop culture in which the historical event is referenced, not how much and how vividly they tell us about the assassination. In fact, to depict the event in veracity (as you require) they need to make an entire film. Thirdly, as I said above, this article belongs to the structure "... cultural depictions", thus its deletion will cause effect to all other ones of the same type. Should remember that apart from this article, List of portrayals of and references to Bill Gates and Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln are also in similar state, meaning that they all lack of references. FBI portrayal in the media seems to be better but still needs more sources. What will happen to these articles? Waiting for other nominators beside Piperdown to nominate them and end up deleting all? We are building an encyclopedia, so it's our duty to find the way to improve articles. Writing article and improving it are difficult tasks, but deleting it just through one click.  A  W  04:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "I am not interested in trimming or pruning this article of its non-notable entries because it is my opinion that all of the entries are non-notable in the context of the historical event." ---> Pushing PoV is not warranted on Wikipedia.  A  W  04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Every time an article gets kept or deleted it's POV pushing, the POV that the article either is or isn't suitable for Wikipedia. If thinking that an article should be deleted makes me a POV-pusher, then you're every bit as guilty for wanting it kept. That dawg, as they say, don't hunt. As for what if any impact deleting this article would have on other articles, that amounts to arguing WP:WAX. The Gates or Lincoln or FBI article lack sources, tag them for sources. If they fail policy, nominate them for deletion. Their existence doesn't justify this article's existence and the proposed deletion of this article isn't dependent on them. Argue this article, not hypotheticals and red herrings. Otto4711 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

that type of "someone mentioned his name here" activity detracts from a classic movie (the same with "The Wizard of Oz IPC" -- "Charlie McCarthy said he was driving to Emerald City in a 1940 radio broadcast".
 * Delete per Masaruemoto. SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into John F. Kennedy assassination. There should be something about this on Wikipedia, but it does not to be long.  --thedemonhog talk • edits 21:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This one involves very notable history significance which most other similar listcruft lists failed. so Weak keep but cut some of the less notable items.--JForget 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a random list of mentions of the assassination in popular culture. There actually are sources that discuss the enduring role memory of the Kennedy assassination plays in American culture, but this article manages to cite none of them.  There is not a single sentence that is worthwhile. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment since my "Speedy Keep" vote was an !invalid vote, I'll have to say Strong (but not Speedy) Keep. I'm not sure if this is covered in a WP, but it occurs to me that, while it adds nothing to the notability of a film or TV series to be referred to "in popular culture" (since those can be seen at any time).  I joined in asking for the deletion of Ferris Bueller in popular culture, since
 * However, I think historical events and historical figures fall into a different category, and that (in certain cases) the pop culture references actually do add to the significance. For example, consider the HMS Titanic... it's been 95 years, and there have been worse sea accidents, such as the sinking of the Dona Paz in 1987, but the 1912 disaster has been "remembered" by succeeding generations.  Likewise, only a minority of us, myself included, were alive during the JFK assassination (itself, less bloody than the Ngo Dinh Diem assassination earlier in November '63) but JFK lives in memory for generations born afterward, worldwide, even in Vietnam, in part because of pop culture.  I agree, though, that the list needs to be cut down... Masauremoto pointed out the silliness of including a line from a skateboard movie... and that's a problem with IPC's, in that people want to include every friggin' reference.  I'm tempted to go in and chop out some of the JFK list now (since the old version can be restored quite easily anyway).  Interested in hearing a counterpoint, for the sake of debate Mandsford 23:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Mandsford and others... Ranma9617 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per consensus above. --164.107.222.23 02:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR isn't something negotiable because the event is significant. What I haven't seen is anyone address the issues raised for deletion. WP:ILIKEIT are not good reasons to keep an article. There are a lot of things wikipedia is not WP:NOT and a soapbox, or a publisher of original thought is not it. I expect the closing admin will keep this in mind.--Crossmr 03:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research is not at issue here. There is no visible original research in the article; it's a collection or index of citations.  Grouping similar things together in an index is encyclopedic editing, not original research; no novel conclusions are being drawn from the grouping. If there are no original conclusions, there is no original research. RandomCritic 03:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What?! There are almost zero sources!  How is this other than original research?  This is not a collection of citations, because there are no citations.  Corvus cornix 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a single "reference" and its to imdb, which isn't reliable since its a user controlled site.--Crossmr 12:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, OR and not citing sources are not the same thing; to be OR it would have to be making an original argument drawn from a synthesis of the literature. That's not going on here.  Second, of course there are citations.  They aren't in standard formats, but WP doesn't prescribe citation formats. Just because a work isn't cited using ref tags or citebook or what have you doesn't make it less of a citation. RandomCritic 13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * He's referring to the fact the article mentions shows and movies by name; I suggest both sides, but especially RandomCritic, read WP:CITE. WP does, to some extent, prescribe citation formats. Also, simply mentioning shows and movies means citing primary sources, which cause some people to go "ee-eyah", per WP:RS. Secondly I suggest he read WP:OR and originalresearch. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. If it's not cited, then by the letter of the law, it can be considered as OR. Morgan Wick 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Morgan Wick. The existence of a movie, book, TV show, song, is not, in and of itself, a citation.  I cannot fathom how that can be claimed.  Corvus cornix 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, clearly a notable topic. I think some people just hate to see an article with "popular culture" in the title. Really, this is a huge topic. You could have subarticles split off from the subarticle. Everyking 10:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People hate to see 100% original research articles. Piperdown 23:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 14:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. Not really an article at all. - Gilliam 05:12, 8 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.