Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UH-60 Black Hawk 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

UH-60 Black Hawk in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates WP:NOR, and indiscriminate information. Just a list of alleged appearances of a particular helicopter in films, TV, etc. No more significant than having a list of unrelated films that just happen to feature Porsche 928.

I am also nominating : for the same reasons. Ironically there is some hidden text in the article quoting the "indiscriminate collection" policy, just before the list proceeds to be just that.

If there are any films or video games that are specifically about these helicopters, they can be merged into the helicopters' own articles. Saikokira 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify the reasons for deletion, in case anyone is under the impression this article only violates WP:NOR; Saikokira 04:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Original research, unsourced and mostly unverifiable
 * Indiscriminate information, just because a film happens to include a type of helicopter is not a significant enough feature to justify listing otherwise unrelated films together.
 * Non-notable, "films featuring UH-60 Black Hawks" is not a notable enough topic in itself to warrant keeping an article about it.
 * Delete both. Unsourced, and that's not likely to change anytime soon. YechielMan 00:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per YechielMan. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - These articles are a part of a larger effort of the Rotorcraft Task Force to split off trivia sections from the helicopter articles. As for "unsourced", how is that possible? The film itself is the reference. (I've also noted this nom on the Task Force talk page) Akradecki 02:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, referencing a film violates WP:NOR policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's absurd! Please quote the line that you're referring to. You might want to re-read the very first paragraph in WP:A, which says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source". Movies are published, and certainly are reliable insofar as what appears in them! So how in the world is stating what's in a movie is OR? Does that mean that plot synopses is OR? Not at all. A movie appearance is completely verifiable. I think you need to re-read the policy, and actually apply it properly. Akradecki 04:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - Oh, and you might want to re-check your policies - WP:NOR has been superceded by WP:A, so you really shouldn't be citing it as "policy" anymore.Akradecki 05:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The page called No original research has been superceded by WP:A, not the policy. WP:NOR is still there: section 2 of WP:A. I find your tone increasingly patronizing and aggressive, and I will not be drawn into an argument with you about clearly defined Wikipedia policy. Saikokira 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * NOR is not applicable here as there is no "new" interpretation involved. Films are "primary sources", but their use to provide descriptive information does not constitute OR.  OR would only be applicable if there was unique and/or personal interpretation of the film, rather than mere description.  As for a "patronising tone", your comments at User talk:Otto4711 about those who disagree with your position are not too friendly either.  -- Black Falcon 06:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I use WP:NOR as a short-cut to WP:ATT, neverless, I still see this as violating WP:NOR, which states "Original research refers to material that is not attributable to a reliable, published source. This includes unpublished facts" If somebody is making a claim that they spotted a particular type of helicopter in a particular film, then that claim has to be "attributable to a reliable, published source". A film is not a published source. Saikokira 06:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How is a film "not a published source"? Is it because it's a fictional film? Are you saying that any film is not considered a published source? If it were a documentary film, is it still not a published source? You're applying standards that simply aren't in the guidelines. Akradecki 19:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Does this imply that no discussion of what occurs in a film can be had unless a major source has a complete synopsis of everything that happened? I think it'd be hard to justify applying this to Star Wars had nobody mentioned anything about lightsabers outside the film, etc. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 19:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Both articles mentioned were created because the pop culture sections were getting too long in the main articles. As long as Wiki policy prevents repetitive deleting of cruft (WP:3RR]], allows concensus by to determine what stays in an article (when crufters outnumber serious aircraft editors), and admins interfere with efforts to remove the cruft by 3RRing those who take it out, then Wiki in effect approves of cruft. SO if cruft is allowed to exist, then why not in its own article? Makes just as much sense as anything else Wiki does. And while you're on the OR bandwagon, swing on over to every article on every movie or TV show ever made. About 98% of them are totally unsourced. So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here. I'm all for banning unsourced cruft totally (assuming the admins would actually enforce it), but until that happens, this stuff is going to be somewhere. It has just as much right here as in a serious article on an aircraft. - - BillCJ 02:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. "So as far as entertainment goes, the OR rule is not enforced on Wiki. So it's kinda silly for you to use that argument here." Articles violating the WP:NOR rule are frequently deleted, as anyone here at AfD will tell you. And it's not an "argument", it's a policy. Saikokira 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - But this doesn't violate NOR. When you refer to something in a movie, or in a book, the movie itself is a reference, and the fact that there's a wikiarticle on the movie shows that it's recognized as a notable reference as well. I also think it's rather ironic that you referred Bill to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as the second paragraph in that essay says, "it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." Akradecki 04:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentYes, it does violate WP:NOR. Films are a primary source and cannot be referenced on Wikipedia. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
 * Regarding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I couldn't be bothered to go into detail about why someone's argument is redundant, when that section (titled What about article x?) deals with the issue so specifically. No irony at all. Saikokira 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Again, you mis-quote policy (and the outdated one at that). Regarding primary sources, they can be referenced on Wikipedia, the policy WP:A specifically says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Saying a Black hawk appears in a film can easily be checked by someone watching the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akradecki (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment. This is getting ridiculous. Of course this list requires specialist knowledge. It requires a knowledge of what a UH-60 Black Hawk looks like for a start. It also requires somebody to have a copy over EVERY SINGLE film and video game on the list. And don't place your replies in the middle of my comments in this AfD. If you want to reply, add your comment below this previous one, I have just had to fix your previous reply. Saikokira 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Yet another grab bag of "Hey, guess what I saw in a movie/comic book/episode of The Simpsons!" list. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This is an example of what we do take out every day from WP:AIR} articles. It was added to the [[F-22 Raptor article, and deleted by another editor:
 * In the game Command and Conquer Generals, the F-22 can be buyed at the USA Airbase, it weponary is, Four homing Air to Air Misiles or 4 Air to Ground Misiles, In Zero Hour it can carry Countermeasures in case of SAM misiles and can be upgraded with America Laser Misiles and Antibunker Misiles, also if you play as General Ganger, You wil gain the King Raptor, Which had six misiles instead of four,also it has an laser defence divise on its tail which permited misiles exploted on midair and don't reach the target, but it still vulnerable to Quad Canons and Gatlling Cannons.


 * Earlier today, I removed this from the RAH-66 Comanche article:
 * In Command And Conquer Generals, RAH-66 Comanche can be buyed at the American Airbase, it weponery is: one machine gun, four Homing Missiles and can be upgraded with rocket pods to get the ability of lunching a barrage of rockets. In Zero Hour, General Ganger can buy the ability to make all of his Comanches become stealth.


 * The first example was posted at lest 6 hours after I removed the second example. Please notice that there are no paragraphs like this in the UH-60 pop-culture article, because we have removed them (probably while still part of the main article). We do keep the article fairly trim, otherwise there would be many paragraphs detailing all sorts of stuff about the games, movies, etc.


 * Regarding the "indiscriminate listings" comment, we remove the RAH-66's "Incredible Hulk" appearence about once a month, and there is a lengthy discussion on that talk page regarding why the appearance is non-notable. While I have not personally vetted the list on the UH-60, I have vetted other lists, and it looks as if this list has been vetted too. THe Blackhawk is a popular icon, as has made many appearences. COuld a few onf the ones in that list be removed? Probably, but I've not seen all the movies on that list, so I don't know how significant their apperances are. - BillCJ 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - wikipedia isn't the place for a list of this nature (unencyclopaedic). /Blaxthos 06:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete both per multiple precedents including but not limited to Articles for deletion/Piano wire in popular culture, Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon references or spoofs (2nd AfD Nomination), Articles for deletion/The Who in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Aerosmith in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Rush in popular culture 2, Articles for deletion/Aleister Crowley in popular culture, Articles for deletion/IKEA in popular culture, Articles for deletion/References to Calvin and Hobbes, Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture (second nomination), and especially Articles for deletion/Semtex in popular culture, Articles for deletion/List of appearances of C96 in popular culture, Articles for deletion/List of films featuring Mini cars and many more. A collection of every random sighting of a particular helicopter in any movie, TV show, video game or whatever with no regard as to the importance (or lack of same) of the sighting. Otto4711 06:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's obvious you guys have a vendetta against pop-culture lists, but you don't care a wit if the same items are listed in the main aircraft articles, even though, according to you, the items themselves are OR and indiscriminate. It bothers you more that there's a list of the items on a separate page than the fact the items exists at all. For whatever reasons, you just don't want pop-culture in list articles. That's fine, but at least admit that's your real issue. Stop PRETENDING the real reason is OR, because it's obvious us to those of us who deal with the issues everday that it's not! If it did bother you, then we'd see you in the edit histories of aircraft pages, fighting the good fight against OR! Meanwhile, serious aircraft editors fight against it every day without your help. A fight that will become even harder if you succeed in taking away the only real compromise we have with the crufters - the only semblance of peace in this never-ending war against cruft. But that doesn't matter to you guys, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. - BillCJ 07:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because people will persist in trying to include extraneous information is not a reason to sanction it. These lists are inherently OR because they require looking at primary sources, in the abscence of anyone REPORTING or STUDYING these things. Another issue is the fact these lists can NEVER be complete, a list of every game, movie, show and book that includes a given aircraft is not only interminable, but utterly useless.  The other problem is determining what is, or is not, a reference, a problem I've addressed other places, but one I feel is a serious issue.  A quick look through these various lists will turn up the idignation of many editors; either 'that's not a reference!' or 'they missed ...'  Nothing will ever convince me these lists are proper encyclopedic material unless they begin to take WP:OR WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection and WP:V seriously.  Strong delete Wintermut3 07:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. If anything on these pages was actually significant (and sourced), then I'd say keep, but it isn't.  Then again, anything that was actually significant would be in the main UH-60 article rather than being split off. FiggyBee 08:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - this kind of crufty, indiscriminate list is exactly what Wikipedia doesn't need. These things could theoretically go on forever, with no guidelines for what should be included and what shouldn't. In addition, who actually would ever find this useful. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  09:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all instances of appearances where the appearance is so frakking important to the plot/storyline/event that the work/movie/game could not exist in its entirety without the helicopter in question back into the main article(s). Delete the article and the rest of the references... I believe a mention and a wikilink in its own article is sufficient. -- saberwyn 11:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wintermut et al. Aside from the numerous other considerations cited, I'm militantly disinterested in the assertion by BillCJ and others that it's necessary to create these crufty, unencyclopedic, unsourced, POV lists because otherwise main articles would be cluttered with the "information."  Who says?  If you think a series of articles you monitor are being deluged with crap, revert the edits.  It's no different from any other WikiProject subject to trivial bombardment of one fashion or another.  Nothing in Wikipedia policy requires us to accept every single unsourced hunk of crap triviality.  This is the moral equivalent of we over in WP:HOCKEY complaining that we needed to make a List of NHL players wearing CCM brand ice skates just because some folks decided they just had to identify CCM wearers.  RGTraynor 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as per several of the arguments above. Strongly concur with RGTraynor in saying that "The main article would be too cluttered" is not an explicit reason for the creation of new garbage articles.  When your home becomes cluttered with junk, do you build a new room to contain the junk?  No, you clean up the mess.  The notion that subsections of an article ought to be forked out in to their own articles is valid when the information is encyclopedic in its own right.  Just because it is there in the parent article does not mean it belongs in its own article, however, and an otherwise pointless "List of appearences of X in popular culture" have absolutely no encyclopedic value!  If any of these "appearances" are somehow significant to the development of X's article then they can be merged back in under a heavily trimmed section, but a laundry list of "Hey I saw it in this movie!" is a waste. Arkyan 15:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AGAIN - I have NO problem deleting genuine cruft from main articles - I do it EVERY day. THe problem is that repeatedly deleitng the same information that a user keeps putting back in leads to revert wars. I don't want ANY pop culture items in ANY aircraft articles at all, on purist grounds, but that does not mean that genuinely notable appearences are not encyclopedic, and should not be mentioned somewhere. But if I keep removing any pop culture items from aircraft articles, eventually some stupid admin with his head up is rear is going to think I'm revert warring, and you morons won't be around to back me up. Yes, the list here is too long; someone dropped the ball in watching it. However, the PROPER soulution is to trim it back as far as possible, and add cite tags. THat is the PROPER way to deal with unsourced material, if thet were GENUINELY what you guys were interested in. But again, you just DO NOT LIKE pop culture list articles, no matter how well-kept they are! Air Force One in popular culture‎ is a vetted, trimmed, well-kept article, but one of you still AfDed it! SO DO NOT GIVE ME THIS GARBAGE ABOUT absolutely no encyclopedic value! - JUST BE MEN AND ADMIT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE LISTS! PERIOD! But please get of your stinking policy high-horse, stop harrassing GENUINE EDITORS who actually want to make decent articles. If the page is OR, TAG IT! But you are WRONG to AfD it without allowing editors a chance to improve the article FIRST. - BillCJ 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to step in at this point, BillCJ, and suggest you read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:CONSENSUS. Challenging the masculinity of other editors, and general incivility is inappropriate behavior that doesn't advance your cause.  I also point out that the PROPER solution (to quote you) is the consensus reached by AfD discussion.  /Blaxthos 16:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By "men" I meant "adults", as that was my intention. I wansn't challenging there maasculinity, but challenging them to act like adults. SHEESH! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Am I to assume then we are all supposed to kowtow to the editors who revert changes intended to restore an article to meet policy and guidelines? A small subset of editors who persist in adding content that does not belong does not constitute consensus.  If you remove material from an article and they put it back, then take it out again.  If you're worried about WP:3RR then try to resolve the issue with the "warring" editor.  If that doesn't work then bring it up on WP:RFC and try to get a consensus there.  If they persist in disrupting the article by adding content in spite of the consensus reached there then escalate the issue further.  I don't see how "giving up" and allowing these editors to add content that fails to meet Wikipedia standards is the right answer. Arkyan 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We do ALL of that! THese pages are the aftermath of removing material that should not be here already. While the UH-60 page does look like it has not been vetted in awhile, no chance to vett or cite sources has been given. None of you are "assuming good faith" on the creation of these pages. They were not made by the crufters, but by serious aviation editors. But WP:OR is not the real issue here! If it were, then the page would not have been AfDed FIRST - an OR notice would have been added to the page instead. The real issue is that you don't like pop-culture list pages! - BillCJ 16:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? I'm confused - first you admit that this is the aftermath of removing material that should not be here yet argue for including it in its own article?  Then you accuse us of violating "assume good faith" and then call in to question our motivations?  Regardless, none of what you are doing here is helping to make your point. The article either belongs or does not, denigrating the rest of us doesn't change that. Arkyan 16:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, the aftermath is the good material, we delete the bad. please, give us some credit! this uh-60 page has not been edited in a while, that is apprarent. i didnt even know it was heare till an article i work on got AfDed too, and i saw this was listed also. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Darn, you beat me to it, Arkyan. That being said, I'm bemused at the notion that standing up against material we feel violates policy and otherwise does not belong here, as opposed to meekly surrendering to a single rogue user who insists on unencyclopedic edits, is the behavior being characterized as unmasculine.  And that being said, BillCJ, do you really think it's constructive to scream at us because you think we don't like pop culture articles, when you admit yourself you don't want pop culture references in the articles about which you yourself care?  Never mind WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA, if you're creating articles for no better reason than to keep junk out of your own line of sight, that's a WP:POINT violation.  Moreover, the policies we cite make no reference as to the credentials of the creators.  An unsourced, unreferenced article filled with unencyclopedic cruft isn't alright just because it was created by a so-called "serious aviation editor."  Were that the case, we'd certainly be guilty of the caprice of which you accuse us. RGTraynor 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * i'm EMPHASISING, not SCREAMING :) i won't use caps anymore just to be sure i'm not misunderstood again. my point is, if you think it's unsourced, tag it! that's the usual way of handling OR issues on Wiki. but again, that's not the issue here, as you have agenda against pop-culture list articles. i don't mind cited, notable pop-culture references in aircraft articles; i can point you to many such pages. but many of these pages are very long, and when you deal with a popular aircraft, such as the uh-1 or uh-60, those lists begin to overwhlm the rest of the article. we split off other sections that become too long. why should pop-culture lists be handled any differently? should we keep a long pop-culture list in the article just because some people don't like the lists on their own page? that doesn't make sense either.
 * all i ask if that you give us the "courtesy" of having a chance to address the issues first. you have the right to AfD an article, but i'm just asking that you "assume good faith" and talk to the editors first, to give us the chance to address the issues. i'm not accusing you all of deceit, but of singlemindedness. you want to get rid of unsourced pop culture cruft. that's great! i do too! but the question is where do we put a long list of notable pop culture references? it seems you want to get rid of those pages too! if you keep challenging thess pages, we'll soon have to have separate articles for the specs, the history, the users, the variants, and all that will be on the main aircraft page will be the intro and the pop-culture list. that doesnt make sense either. again, i'm not ever talking about keeping the bad cruft, but notable items. had a noticed bewen placed on the page, i might have spent yesterday and today addressing those problems, rather than trying to defend the page's existence. - BillCJ 17:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is simply not content worthy of an encyclopedia article... any notable information can be inculded in other places -- we don't need a crufty article like this (as this AfD is illustrating) -- WP:ATT/WP:OR are just the finer points (no need debating them when the whole topic is cruft!). /Blaxthos 19:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per RGTraynor, Saberwyn et al. Unencyclopedic information is unencyclopedic information, wherever it comes from.  Eliminator JR   Talk  18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:A.
 * Article is automatically sourced by mentionning the films (primary source). (Though this could be improved by adding a reference section and following WP:CITE and using easybiblio maker.
 * The information is a good collection of information pertaining to the UH-60.
 * Films using UH-60 is a notable enough subject to have an article. What is interesting is I could probably add a .ogg video conference of a discussion we've had with the one of the producers which answers some of the questions regarding the Cost of renting? How the filming was done? How to rent? You will also notice that the article mentions popular culture. So that includes radio, games, toys (toy manufacturers), shops, etc... --CyclePat 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are presuming, absent any ... well, err, attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. RGTraynor 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - just a collection of random facts of no encyclopedic importance, fails WP:NOT]. Merge whatever is of encyclopedic importance into the main article, but delete this content fork. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia articles are not lists of loosely associated topics also fails WP:ATT and other reasons stated by Blaxthos, Wintermut3, Otto4711, Arkyan, RGTraynor, et al. (and what a lot of discussion over a pointless cruft list!). Croxley 22:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Moderate Keep This article keeps trivia away from the main helicopter article (just like Talk:0.999.../Arguments keeps objections away from the main talk page (although that page does not contain possible original research and is not an article)). It references movies as sources without interpretation (although people should verify whether the helicopters in the movies are actually UH-60 Black Hawks). Eyu100(t 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions.  -- Carom 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as simple listcruft. Any inclusions of the helicopter in popular culture that are notable can be included in the parent article, any non-notable entries are, well, nonnotable and blatent listcruft. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is listcruft, yes, but its role is to move this kind of content out of the main text. On current Wikipedia there are two options: (1) either to have this cruft in the main article or (2) to have it in a leaf article like this. The second solution keeps WP better, not perfect but better. Pavel Vozenilek 15:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that kindof circular logic? If it's listcruft then by definition it has no place on wikipedia.  /Blaxthos 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or Option (3) - edit it out of the article. I still await a reason for keeping this article better than "It's too much trouble."  RGTraynor 16:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here's a reason: Despite what some call "cruft", the fact that a type of helicopter has an impact on popular culture is significant. The Blackhawk isn't quite the icon that they Huey is, but it's getting there. Face it, how military objects impact society and culture can't be ignored (hey, there's whole sciences, ie "sociology" and "cultural anthropology" about this stuff). Akradecki 20:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, if this helecopter actually " has an impact on popular culture" there would surely be documentation in sociological journals. The fact of the matter is that this is just a list of pop culture references -- not a demonstration that it has any sort of impact on popular culture (which it does not).  /Blaxthos 20:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with you, as do, I believe, some other editors. I think the real point is that this should be debated on the article's talk page, not at AfD. Before bringing this to AfD, things should have been discussed there, first. Akradecki 20:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopedic--Mmx1 18:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - So many excellent reasons to delete, but none to keep. Masaruemoto 01:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete coooooool discusion, delete wins the day tho --Zedco 11:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Section 2
comment to above: The above sub-paragraph is to help divide this AfD for perusal and editing reasons. I couldn't find my comment in this long debate so here is my comment to my previous statement and reply to the above question from RGTraynor. I am not presuming, absent any attribution, that all those movies which supposedly have UH-60s in them actually do. Those movies are documents in of themself and generally, for those people that stay to the end of a movie at the cinema, you can see the credits. Those credits will indicate what type of vehicles where used in a given movie. Perhaps you are confusing original research a synthesis of because A (image of UH-60) and B(image of UH-60 in movie) then movie has UH-60. I don't know but, according to me such a synthesis would and should be pretty obvious and no different than the commonly accept idea "the sky is blue." Perhaps there is a mix up here on the interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not. A movie is a generally considered a reliable source of information, in fact it is the primary source. Nevertheless here is a link to a secondary source which states which movies use a helicopter. And here is a published comments, which has been peer reviewed, that state that there was a black hawk in this movie. --CyclePat 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * CP, besides your misunderstanding about WP:ATTribution and primary vs. secondary sources (which tends to indicate notability), this is simply unencyclopaedic content. If it were truely notable (and actually impacts popular culture) there would be true reliable secondary sources (peer-reviewed sociological journals, in this case) talking about all the impacts of thus-and-so helicopter on popular culture.  Obviously there are no such articles because it has no relevance in popular culture -- this is, as most have pointed out, list cruft and is not appropriate for wikipedia.  Hope this helps clear this up.  /Blaxthos 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Those links are, frankly, a waste of our time. All along the keep-proponents have been pushing the notion that this article is necessary because it lists (in theory, accurately) the movies in which this particular model of helicopter appears.  Now your purported attribution is a simple linksearch on IMDB for "helicopter?"  This is just painful.  RGTraynor 04:29, 25 March 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.