Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hawking 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   keep, WP:SNOW consensus. Non-admin closure.  Jamie ☆ S93  20:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

STRONG DELETE Wikipedia is not a collection of useless prime time cartoon TV trivia. This article is unencyclopedic. Ever wonder why people mock Wikipedia? It's because of articles like this that are just references to Family Guy and Simpsons episodes.George Pelltier (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Fixed nomination. Place afd1 on the article, afd2 on the nomination page, and afd3 on the AfD log page. Thanks, cab (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination reasoning basically amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Popular culture is a perfectly valid subject, and describing the multiple cultural depictions of a particular individual seems perfectly reasonable to me. JulesH (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And in answer to the nominator's suggestion of mocking, I've _never_ heard anyone mock Wikipedia for having articles like this. I have heard people mocking Wikipedia for being too ready to delete articles because a small minority (that's us, here) didn't like them. JulesH (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful page which is inside our policies. Also per Jules Kingpin13 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If he were an actor, his appearances or credits would've been notable without question. The reason this is being questioned is because of the article title and the fact it lists a lot of cartoons. Neither is a particularly good reason to delete. It could use some more references, but the topic is notable enough to cover and obviously can't be covered reliably in the article about Hawking himself since it would cause bloat and doesn't fit with the academic context in there. Viable split. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom does not give a good reason for deletion other than "I don't like it". Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Stephen Hawking is one of the best-known physicists alive today, and he's bound to be noted by the entertainment industry. Wikipedia is there to take notice of this. It's true that many "in popular culture" articles or sections get crufty, but that doesn't mean popular culture is inherently evil. Also, the Stephen Hawking article is already over 44 kilobytes long, so merging this into there is not really an option. J I P  | Talk 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - people mock Wikipedia because anyone can vandalize it and some of the "information" incorporated in articles here is less than definitive, not because it contains pop culture. I consider this AfD very poorly thought out, especially at a time when the man is in the news. - Denimadept (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment If it's just his "credits" as you say then why not merge with Stephen Hawking. This article sets a bad precedent for other celebrities to have their own 'in popular culture' pages. There's already Three's Company in Popular Culture which I also nominated. There now could easily be Mick Jagger in popular culture, Bart Simpson in popular culture and other articles which are just TV trivia. This is completely unencyclopedic.George Pelltier (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * comment - I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't. - Denimadept (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How can we have Bart Simpson in popular culture? Bart Simpson is part of popular culture. J I P  | Talk 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep this appropriate article. Could a passing admin please close this debate?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and you have some suggestions there for some good articles.  I find it amazing that we don't have the two you mentioned. (the other nomination you mention is at Articles for deletion/Three's Company in popular culture--I think it too is justified, though it obviously does not have anywhere near the same importance. DGG (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly WP:trivia, anything useful could go into the Stephen Hawking article, if anything it should be speedily deleted Aurush kazeminitalk 05:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Ordinarily I'd say merge, but the sheer volume of material here warrants its own article as proof of his being somewhat of an icon. (I sure had no idea there were this many!) Link to it from the main article. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this topic is quite notable. It's not up to the deletion process to define "useless". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Isaac Newton in popular culture; Albert Einstein in popular culture, but not Richard Feynman in popular culture. i take it, some have a problem with "popular culture" articles, but the sociologists don't. pohick (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose Richard Feynman isn't much in popular culture. :-d - Denimadept (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination aside, an article on pop culture references does not mean we should immediately delete. I would prefer a merge, but there appears to be so many pop culture references here that merging looks unlikely, so keep and reference the thing. — Moe   ε  13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per substantial notability. This biography, for example, contains substantial discussion of his television appearances. DHowell (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article seems fine given his notability and there's rather too much information to merge into the already long article Hideki (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep To show how such a brilliant scientific mind has become so well known, through references in popular culture, has great encyclopedia value.  D r e a m Focus  03:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep WP:SNOWBALL Jwray (talk) 05:42, 27 April 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.