Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Navy SEALs 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. By about 3 to 1, people here are of the view that this list suffers from the problems identified in the nomination. These arguments are also stronger, because while the "keep" opinions contest this view, they do not substantiate their arguments by indicating why exactly the policies and guidelines indicated in the nomination do not apply to this content. They mostly argue that the topic is notable, which does not address the reasons for deletion identified by the "delete" side.  Sandstein  10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

United States Navy SEALs in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A list(icle) of media in which SEALs appear. Tagged with "This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture", this is yet another violation of multiple policies and recommendations (multiple policies and guidelines (WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V, plus the just created WP:NOTTVTROPES). Mostly unreferenced and according to my BEFORE, probably unrescuable, as this topic does not appear to have been covered before in a way that meets SIGCOV, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC) I only mention it for the one specific practice that is common to many articles. If a single consensus can spare the need of multiple AfDs, and potentially even more time, then why not? But, it seems you have as much faith in RfCs as I do in AfDs, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Have a nice day - w o lf  16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, Popular culture,  and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic and mostly unreferenced. Fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - like it or not, we do recognize the impact of article subjects on popular culture here on WP, including examples of literature, film, art, etc. that are based on, inspired by, or otherwise depict said subjects. The entries on this page do have sourcing, and/or otherwise are linked to other articles, a practice commonly accepted in list articles. SIGCOV isn't an issue as US Navy SEALs are an extremely well recognized and reliable supported military unit. As for the rest of the link-salad of guidelines, the nom hasn't demonstated how each one is violated by this article. (And some of the listed links are essays, I don't see how we can violate an essay). Personally, I think it may be better to have one centralized list, instead of numerous, indivdual pop culture sections on SEAL-related articles. Also, why nominate this and not the other sister units in pop culture listed on this article? - w o lf  16:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. " The entries on this page do have sourcing". Most don't, and the few that do are PRIMARY or fail SIGCOV. SIGCOV is an issue, as no source found discusses the topic of "United States Navy SEALs in popular culture". Your argument that "SIGCOV isn't an issue as US Navy SEALs are an extremely well recognized and reliable supported military unit" is totally off mark, as we are not discussing the deletion of articles about US Navy SEALs. You ask for more policy explanations? Sure. IPC discusses how IPC articles should be written. The current article obviously fails the " only properly sourced examples" part, and has major problems with " that are bona fide cultural references" (defined in that guideline as "Inclusion of unremarkable mentions or appearances", "Inclusion of coverage in works of minor significance"). GNG and NLIST are failed as obviously nobody has found sources that show this topic notable by the virtue of discussing it ("accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines"), which also covers OR (this article is OR as in, it claims that the mostly unreferenced examples show whatever, and unreferenced part covers how this fails WP:V). The relevance of Trivia and Not TV Tropes is I think obvious (this is a list of TV-trope like trivia). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Aah-choo! (Sorry, hayfever) I'm not sure that you addressed all the rules/essays you listed. I wrote: " " (Perhaps I should've swapped the order of those two sentences.) Some, perhaps many, of the entries here that are linked, are likely supported by refs in the linked articles. Again, this is commonly accepted. But that aside, why not tag the unsupported entries and see if some refs come in? Other may not require refs, in the same way that we don't need refs for film/tv episode plots. Lastly, why this list and not the two sisters in see also? - w o lf  11:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild Starting from the end: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AfDs are simpler if we don't lump too many entities into one discussion, each merits is own BEFORE etc. As for the article, the practice (of months if not years) of rewriting and often enough, deleting trivia lists of "Foo topic in popular culture"(see history of WikiProject Deletion sorting/Popular culture) that most editors don't consider such kitchen-and-sink lists to be encyclopedic. It doesn't matter whether US Navy SEALs are "extremely well recognized", so is for example the Eiffel Tower (but the list of media mentioning it went away few days ago in Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)). I already cited that in order for such list to be kpt it should meet the requirement of being "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Adding references to primary sources or passing mentions won't make this encyclopedic, even if we address WP:V we still fail most other policies. I am not sure what you mean by "commonly accepted". Such low quality articles existed for over a decade, yes, but it is "commonly accepted" now that they need to be significantly rewritten (to adhere to NLIST and IPC, as well as MOS:POPCULT which I didn't mention but it is very relevant) or deleted. For an example of a recently rewritten military-themed topic, see Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture. They key element that, IMHO, resulted in this article being kept (after a rewrite, to get rid of the ton of trivia), was that it is discussed, as a topic, in RS (" There is a long tradition of upholding story of the battle as an example of virtuous self-sacrifice", cited to an academic book which says pretty much that - I checked). Now, can you find a reliable source that says something along the lines of "cultural depiction of US Navy SEALs has been often discussed as blah blah"? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Blah blah"... got it. - w o lf  15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't usually chime in on other peoples' threads. But respectfully, it's not really constructive or WP:CIVIL to make comments like this. There's already a risk of promoting a WP:BATTLEGROUND by repeatedly replying to multiple editors as you've done. But that aside, this particular comment is especially unhelpful. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actaully not sure who you're replying to. You'll note this was a quote, so I agree that it was not particularly helpful, hence the reason I pointed it out. In this string I've just responded to replies posted to me, starting with my !vote. Other than that, I posted a few comments in this AfD, not so much to argue against the deletion but to point out stuff that I wasn't sure the other editor was aware of or not. But that said, I'm pretty much done. Have a nice day. - w o lf  00:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thewolfchild. I don't see how it fails WP:NLIST, and it inherently passes WP:GNG due to notable forms of popular culture portraying a notable group repeatedly. I am sure more sources could be added as well. The most relevant policy would seem to be WP:NOTDIR, but as the list demonstrates there is a strong association between popular culture and SEALs and is valid encyclopedic content. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I replied above on how this fail NLIST, but to be clear: it has NOT "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mdewman6, if there is no secondary sourcing for any or most of them, then there is no evidence whatsoever that this is a notable topic. Nothing passes GNG "inherently" unless--well, one is a Supreme Court judge or a K-pop band, but it doesn't work for this topic. The list, unverified as it is, demonstrates nothing, except for the fact that people love adding pop culture trivia to Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per keepers. Unimpressed by the barrage of policies cited, pretty indiscriminately. WP:NOTTVTROPES is just an essay, and clearly does not apply. Piotyrus is an experienced editor, & should have learned by now which policies are relevant for deletion discussions. Johnbod (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Non of the sources in the article demonstrate significant coverage of the topic "United States Navy SEALs in popular culture" (as a group). It simply doesn't matter how notable of a topic "United States Navy SEALs" because this article isn't about them in popular culture. This is why it fails WP:LISTN. Additionally, per MOS:POPCULT pop cult articles aren't self sourcing. So if the article is to be kept it's notability must be demonstrated through significant coverage in reliable sources, and anything that can't be verified through those sources removed per WP:V. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with United States Navy SEALs and prune considerably. I think that even a lot of the folks in here arguing for "Keep" would agree that there's a lot here that could be pruned from this list.  Frankly, my personal opinion is that by the time we have done the necessary pruning, there'll be little enough left that what remains could easily just be included near the end of the main SEALs article rather than having its own page. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The preference is to keep this off the main article, which is already WP:TOOBIG. - w o lf  15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. Potentially a valid subject but the current article is an example farm that is unsalvageable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:OR (specifically "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it.") To be clear, United States Navy SEALs is a notable topic, but it doesn't mean we get to create endless WP:CONTENTFORKs where we compile WP:PRIMARY research based on editorial opinion. This isn't a topic in independent reliable sources, and even it were, there would be nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this article as it doesn't have a single proper source. To one commenter's point, Delta Force in popular culture would fail our policies and be deleted for the same reasons. It does not provide a policy justification for preserving either unsuitable article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete mostly per nom. Any salvageable content could be merged with the main SEALs article as others have suggested.Intothatdarkness 17:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The preference is to keep this off the main article, which is already WP:TOOBIG. - w o lf  15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I said 'could', not 'should.' Intothatdarkness 17:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only legitimately sourced piece of information here is the opening sentence explaining what the Navy SEALs are, which is sufficiently covered on the main United States Navy SEALs already. The remainder of the article is poorly sourced (i.e., not a single legitimate reliable source being used) trivia. There is quite simply nothing to salvage here, so merging would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * most, if not all, the entries are linked to articles, which as a standard practice on list articles is accepted in place of refs. - w o lf  15:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You may have missed this, but quite a few of these TV Tropes-style articles that lack proper secondary/tertiary sourcing for the contents have recently either been deleted (e.g. Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination), Articles for deletion/Waterloo in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Vercingetorix in popular culture (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Battersea Power Station in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Classical elements in popular culture (3rd nomination), Articles for deletion/The Troubles in literature and popular culture) or rewritten in prose form based on proper secondary/tertiary sources (e.g. Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination)). TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I may have. I don't regularly follow/take part in AfD... it's a flawed and broken process. That said, I was just pointing out that it's common for entries in list articles to be acceptable if linked to another article (where the info is supported). I'm not mentioning this as an opinion or argument so much as a simple fact. Hopefully articles haven't been, or won't be, deleted as unsourced just because the majority of entries have been linked instead of directly sourced. If people have an issue with the practice, perhaps they should address it as whole with an RfC, instead of piecemeal via individual AfDs. - w o lf  00:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, User:Thewolfchild, but "AfD... it's a flawed and broken process" is almost Trumpian in its meaninglessness and its deflection of the actual topic of discussion. You seem to be thinking of all list articles as the same. Yes, "List of beers" would included "Heineken" and that's enough--but the point here is that we're dealing with something more slippery. "List of novels with beers in it" is an entirely different matter--the kind of stuff that requires secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Sorry [but your comment] is almost Trumpian in its meaninglessness..." -Heeeeyy now, no need to be so nasty. I was just explaining why I wasn't aware of the other noms.
 * "You seem to be thinking of all list articles as the same" - No, I'm only referring to a practice that has long been accepted at many of the list articles that I'm aware of, (through editing or just reading). You must be aware of it, and if you have an issue with it (which it appears you do), then surely you agree with my suggestion to have it addressed, project-wide, by way of a single RfC, which could very well negate the need for many, many AfDs. As for the rest of your comments, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I absolutely support sourcing for article content, the more refs the better, especially quality secondary sources. Have a good evening. - w o lf  03:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how an RfC could help. AfD is needed to review such entries one by one, as some are unrescuable, some can be rewritten (sometimes with total TNTing, sometimes a bit of content is rescuable), some are mergeable. What could RfC do except take time away from fixing the problem and and up with likely 'keep doing what you are doing'? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as it's not very well-written and seems devoted to listing examples from mostly non-notable shows, which either seem to revolve around Navy SEALs or mention them in passing detail. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Too broad to be kept, would be better if we had more citations or a short few sentences on the impact of the SEAL characters in the media. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, no policy based arguments why this should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as a case of WP:TNT, unless someone does a rewrite on the level of what was done to Loch Ness Monster in popular culture. -Ljleppan (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as shotgunning irrelevant non-policy references into a nom: TRIVIA is an MOS page, IPC and NOTTVTROPES are essays, and INDISCRIMINATE is used wrong, per WP:DISCRIMINATE. It's hard to tell how many of the above !votes have been inappropriately influenced by the misreferencing. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You could ping the voters and ask. And you present no policy based arguments for keeping this mess. Oh, and you convenient fail to discuss several other linked policy pages, which leads me to conclude that they are very relevant and you have no good way to address them... seriously, "keep because the nominator cited some essays" is a pretty weak argument. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:02, 16 May 2022 (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.