Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Football 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. Cirt (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Football in popular culture

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

This is trivial listcruft at best. Important notes (if there is any) should be in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nuclear Football. I thought IPC articles/sections/whatever were deprecated unless there was something significant about them? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What happened is that I tried to compromise. I don't think the trivial mentions belong in the main article, but since so many people clearly want a place for such things, I tried to leave a separate place for them to express themselves. Rob disagrees with this idea, and will probably continue to nominate the articles I created. Mintrick (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing nothing in the talk page, but this doesn't mean it didn't happen. Nevertheless, if this really is a dispute in editing, AFD is not the place for it.  RobJ, can we get your take on this? -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 13:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not an editing dispute. It's a philosophical difference, and it's been debated on other articles. Suffice it to say, I've given up on the moderate stance and decided to side with Rob and others. Mintrick (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mintrick rarely discussed things, this so called "compromise" didn't take place. He just moved this pop culture cruft to a new article with NO consensus or discussion. Just because people enjoy this type of information, doesn't mean it's suitable for Wikipedia. I want to point out: I've nominated several of these in the past, some Mintrick has created and some others have created. I'm not just singling out his creations. I would be fine with just merges/redirects for many similar articles, but usually they just get reverted and merge discussions just die out. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't discuss every edit I make. When people had a problem, I discussed it. But in almost every case, there was no conflict. How about this: I'll try and leave a note on your talk page whenever I make any edits. Mintrick (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I think that this may have been split out of Nuclear Football, so it shouldn't be merged back there Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This material could've formed an independent article, but it certainly shouldn't be moved back to another. Mintrick (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuke! Look at all that listcruft, delete. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't actually have a criterion in Deletion policy called "listcruft". Please provide a policy-based rationale. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" seems to fit the bill, clearly and obviously. Mintrick (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Total listcruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See above. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know full well what we mean when we say it and others have already filled in that blank. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep unless you want to delete thousands of other "X in pop culture" articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm yes please. Ryan 4314   (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * People want to delete this article, and that is what is relevant here in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From what sources? The closing administrator isn't a magic source-making service.  It's up to you to show the sources that can be used to "reference better" the article.  Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete! Another "in popular culture" article lacking any notability.  Wikipedia is not the place to come document every time something is shown on TV Corpx (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This article is mostly original research, see WP:OR and the topic of Nuclear Football in popular culture is not notable per WP:NOTE.  Drawn Some (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix up or Merge Cultural influences and recognition is often part of a subjects notability and should be included appropriately. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Often, perhaps. But you haven't stated whether it is in this specific case. Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, the pop-cultural role of the "nuclear football" image and concept is itself of such substantial notability and significance that it needs to be included for completeness and accuracy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 19:39: it needs to be kept, because it's important to notability. 02:49: Because it's notable, it's important enough to be kept. Your argument is circular. Mintrick (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge (or Keep) to Nuclear football. The information should not be on a separate article, however the information is valuable enough to be on Wikipedia. Or else lots of "things in pop culture" will be removed. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As Uncle G said above, the future implications are irrelevant, and this is not a good argument. Mintrick (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsplit and clean up the main article. This is just a WP:CFORK. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as oft depicted rather prominently as a plot theme. article quality no guide to deletion. I'd merge it myself unless article size precludes it. Completely arbitrary split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Nuclear football. This article does not need to be so verbose, as most of these entries could be summarized in a sentences that goes "The nuclear footbal has been featured in a variety of films, including bla, bla, bla, and bla." Beyond that, this article is not independantly notable, tho the content may be suitable in the parent article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I merged any content I felt worthwhile into a small IPC section. Two short paragraphs, much better than the current state of this article. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a separate article, trimming as needed (The merge mentioned above was, properly, not actually performed--a drastic merge during the discussion of an article is inappropriate). If it should close merge, that would be another matter. It is not correct that   IPC articles/sections/whatever are not deprecated if there is significant content, and the use of a theme in nptable works with WP articles is significant contnet. There was indeeed a time when many of them were deleted, but consensus has I think very definitely changed from 2 years ago on this. Keep this,  and consider restoring many of the others.  DGG (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in this particular case, I don't think this subject has recieved significant (or any) secondary recognition to indicate it is a notable theme. I agree that concensus has changed, and the long list of deleted IPC articles should be looked back at carefully. But this, this is a poor example of something with little to no cultural impact, and I don't feel bad about jumping the gun and boldly merging content before it gets deleted. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This material is totally unencyclopedic as it lacks a central topic where notability has been shown. Instead each point is a mini-topic in itself which is best presented (with the missing citations to reliable sources) in other articles. We aren't a repository for uncited cruft of this nature.  Them  From  Space  02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? Nuclear Football is that notable central topic unless you're now proposing to delete that. And no, each usage is not a mini-topic (!?!). Each item is immediately sourceable to itself - an example froma movie is citable to that movie, likely a review of the movie would confirm this. WP:Cruft is antagonistic, please avoid using that in AFD or elsewhere, it simply shows a shade of WP:IDON'TLIKEIT.  -- Banj e  b oi   05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, the central topic is not nuclear football, but nuclear football in popular culture. Important distinction. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Expand and clean-up. The list would be more useful to showing the most notable examples of this being a plot device and variations but that also requires someone (i) having the hundreds of examples of usages already in the article and (ii) actually watching them all to compare which are most significant. Until then let it grow and encourage sourcing. -- Banj e  b oi   05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nuke and Pave — mention in individual pop culture articles if appropriate. Jack Merridew 06:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  -- Jack Merridew 06:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing wrong with popular culture articles. There is no possible way to merge that with the main article, it ending with just a redirect, and anything that was put over there called trivia and deleted later on.  So that isn't an option.  Listing every film and whatnot that features this, which is how most people probably know it even exists, is fine for an article on popular culture.   D r e a m Focus  01:51, 18 June 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.