Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Coast Guard 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, reasons for keeping are quite weak and are not from a policy or guideline basis. --Core desat 07:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Coast Guard in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - mish-mash collection of times a Coast Guard vehicle or person has appeared in a film combined with times the words "Coast Guard" happens to be mentioned on TV equals directory of loosely associated topics. Tells us nothing about the Coast Guard or the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn. Otto4711 13:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just a random list. How come last three AfD are in Populat culture? Shabda 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Maybe the list needs to be improved but the US Coast Guard is an important part of popular culture in the United States and is closely intertwined with life in a lot of coastal communities. --- Safemariner 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Coast Guard is indeed an important part of the culture of the United States. That does not mean that a list of every time something mentions "Coast Guard" is also notable. Otto4711 15:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep How in the world did the author miss "The Guardian", the Kevin Costner film, and one of the few directly about the Coast Guard? The article does follow the right track in explaining significant portrayals of the Coast Guard but author makes the mistake of cheapening the subject with an EFR (every reference) approach, much of it drawn from his own memory, sometimes mistaken.  Regarding Back to the Future, if you must know, the "Coast guard reference" was that Dr. Brown was guessing that Marty was "in the Coast Guard youth auxiliary" while trying to work the mind-reading machine... hardly an honor.  Considering that the Coast Guard is the least understood or appreciated branch of the military, it deserves better than this.  Save it if you can.  Mandsford 15:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is nothing more than a trivia section presented as a stand alone article. Delete all trivia. What is the point? SilkTork 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The same argument can be made for all of wikipedia. It is a POV to claim something is trivia and something is not --- Safemariner 00:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, ok, so famous groups get mentioned sometimes in movies, doesn't mean there should be a trivia article for that. Biggspowd 21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Such a broad inclusion criteria leads to a list of loosely associated topics Corpx 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep to some, everything is a loose association: the subjects of a work are tight associations, and so are the references it makes. thats what the netweork of ideas is about. Loose associations are "List of books with characters who name begin with A" 05:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Another in an annoying flood of AfDs proposed for no reason than the words "popular culture" in the title. RandomCritic 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment does not address the substance of the nomination. Your personal annoyance at a certain set of nominations is not a valid argument for keeping the article. Otto4711 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is valid argument if the REAL reason for nomination is the title. The content is certainly worth keeping. --- Safemariner 00:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The REAL reason for the nomination is laid out in the nomination. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet and a trivia dump by any other name is still a trivia dump. Otto4711 14:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per mandsford and randomcritic. Mathmo Talk 21:44, 7 August 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.