Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Statue of Liberty 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 per consensus. PeaceNT 06:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Statue of Liberty in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete as an indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every appearance of the SoL in any medium regardless of the importance or lack of same of the appearance either within the medium or in the real world. Otto4711 03:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep. borderline bad faith nomination; no reason to be on AfD. Notorious4life 04:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but you have absolutely no reason whatsoever to accuse me of making a bad faith nomination, "borderline" or otherwise. Otto4711 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think what Notorious4life probably meant was that you've basically listed almost every article from a category in a seemingly hasty attempt to get the category itself deleted, and targeting such a prestigious article as this during your mass purge seemed petty. Personally, I think you were just impatient and weren't actually reading all the articles you nominated for AfD, and likely listed this by mistake. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep While I dislike these pop culture articles and sections, and think this one is particularly terrible, this page serves a useful purpose.  It helps keep the "pop culture" section in the main Statue of Liberty article pared down to just what's most relevant, with all the excess junk trivia in the subarticle. --Aude (talk) 06:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This WP:USEFUL argument is brought up with all pop culture article deletions, ignoring the merits of the article itself. You shouldn't be in favour of keeping an article full of "excess junk trivia". Pomte 06:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But I am in favour of keeping it. Subarticles, per WP:SUMMARY, are helpful for keeping excess trivia and detail out of the main article. --Aude (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But also note WP:AVTRIV. If a trivia section is too massive for a main article it serves Wikipedia no better as a separate article. Otto4711 07:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As one that is helping maintain the main article (one article out of my massive watchlist), I'd rather keep the subarticle rather than go back to having people keep adding trivia to the main article. See "In popular culture" articles (We need to stay at #3 and avoid #5). Not ideal, but doing it this way makes maintaining the article more manageable. --Aude (talk) 07:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not my intention, in nominating these sorts of garbage dump articles, to make life more dificult for people who monitor articles which attract this kind of pop culture crap. However, unless the culture of Wikipedia changes so that both indiscriminate "in pop culture" sections in articles and "in pop culture" articles are both consdered unacceptable, this sort of crap will be perpetuated. If you don;t want this crap in its own article or in the main article, then take a stand in this and similar AFDs to send the message that it is not wanted anywhere on WP. Otto4711 07:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Otto4711 is misunderstanding policies quite a bit. Articles need to be of a managable size and reasonably focused. Separating out aspects dealing with pop culture and fiction from the main article keeps everything nicer. Each article should be considered on it's own merits, and according to Wikipedia policy, not Otto4711's personal dislikes and beliefs. Furthermore, I strongly object to Otto4711's frequent use of strong words like "crap" to characterize what Otto4711 wants to delete. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Since the info is to big to fit on the Statue of Liberty page this page was created. It shows the influence of the statue on society and how often it is used.--Dacium 06:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * See, the problem with that is, if this information is garbage in the main SoL article, it's garbage on its own in a standalone article. Otto4711 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a widely used icon in fiction, so there is nothing indiscriminate about listing those works where it plays a part. The article is well referenced. And I am not imporessed to agree with you by your arguing with each person who disagrees with you. You just keep repeating the same arguments. Inkpaduta 14:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that scope makes it indiscriminate? Look at the example for National Treasure: "Brief view in an intro shot of New York City." This implies that the Statue plays as insignificant a part as it can in the movie, merely because it happens to be in the city it is set. The article is not well-referenced. Look how many fact's there are. Pomte 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep with improvements. I'm certain more could be said about the topic itself - the use of the Statue in pop culture - and less emphasis on an exhaustive list of appearances.  In particular the summary descriptions of each appearance creates a bloated article and those should be heavily pared down.  But again, more work on making this an article about the Statue in pop culture and less a list of appearances, and this will be a much more encyclopedic article. Arkyan 18:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, but are there reliable sources on this subject? Pomte 19:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 &mdash;Cel ithemis  01:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep ridiculous nomination. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 21:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Statue of Liberty Exhibit has a section titled "The Statue in Popular Culture" (see ).  Also, this pdf source has a section on the status in popular culture (starting on page 11).  -- Black Falcon 22:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep — useful and not intrinsically indiscriminate. If the article is attracting indiscriminate additions, that is an argument for paring the article down, not for deletion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article has a lot of the pointless sub-trivia that plagues all "...in popular culture" articles, but unlike many of them, there's still plenty left to write about once that's cleared away. In addition to the sources Black Falcon pointed out, see also:
 * "Monumental Fictions: National Monument as a Science Fiction Space", Banks, Miranda J.. Journal of Popular Film & Television 30:3 (2002).
 * A Guide to Apocalyptic Cinema by Charles P. Mitchell, ISBN 0313315272 (compares the destruction of the statue in the movies Deluge (1933) and Deep Impact)
 * K. Evertz, "The 1986 Statue of Liberty Centennial : Commercialization and reaganism", Journal of Popular Culture, Volume 29, Number 3, Winter 1995, pp. 203-224(22) (discusses images of the destruction or disintegration of the statue in advertising, from the 19th century to the statue's centennial)
 * Barry Moreno, The Statue of Liberty Encyclopedia, ISBN 0684862271
 * Roger A Fischer, "Oddity, Icon, Challenge: The Statue of Liberty in American Cartoon Art, 1879-1986", The Journal of American Culture 1986, 9 (4), 63–81
 * also this online exhibit for 19th century cartoons and illustrations
 * Keep This is what justifies listing these articles for AfD individually--this particular topic is sufficiently important.DGG 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The Statue of Liberty is important to the plots of many of the films/television series and I have referenced to it a few times. The article could use some more cleanup getting more sources added and focus on getting the screenshots for the films listed. --Nehrams2020 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with maintenance/cleanup to keep list clear of background details. The statue should be a main theme and explanations should be given for each entry. Hoverfish Talk 09:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Some of the entries may be unencyclopedic but things like Planet of the Apes need to be mentioned. --Error 22:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is an important piece of pop culture. Also, note that the nominator has nominated nearly every article in Category:Lists of films with features in common, most of which do not fit the reason given by the nominator. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 18:40, 25 February 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.