Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Merge to Nighthawks. Waltontalk 16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nighthawks in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Nighthawks in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)

The trend with "in popular culture" topics, wittily captured by this former embedded list, is over the top and is now heading downhill.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smilodon in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Strangelove in popular culture as well as several others just today. Punkmorten 23:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was closed as "no consensus" four days ago. I voted to merge, but I don't think your vague "downhill trend" argument is an improvement on the previous rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the trend is not to afd articles 4 days after previous closure. feydey 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not a valid reason in this discussion. We need to talk about the article, not "procedure".Dannycali 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Feydey indicates, that is exactly what has just been done, so there is no need to go over it again hours later. Tyrenius 05:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is an indiscriminate list of loosely related terms. Fails
    WP:NOT by design. Jay32183 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete with some merge to the parent article.--JForget 00:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is actually merge then, not delete. Tyrenius 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge into the main article. Wikipedia is not the place to itemize mentions of a painting. This would an article for every book/painting/creature that's mentioned in "popular culture" Corpx 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the argument is that this painting is of particular importance. Tyrenius 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. the 'in popular culture' thing is a bit out of hand Kripto 01:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a general point. You need to make a specific case for this article. Tyrenius 08:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius 02:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; Re-nominating this only four days after the last AFD seems excessive. I don't like "In popular culture" articles, but seriously... 96 hours between AFDs? Masaruemoto 02:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, it's very soon after the last AFD but, there is no specified time frame before re-nominating an article. The result of the last AFD was no consensus with a strongly implied suggestion that this be merged to the main article and winnowed to the "notable" instances. It takes about 40 seconds to merge an article, so those who argued for a merge could certainly have merged this information by now. The notion of merging the "notable" instances begs the question of which instances are actually notable, and that question remains unanswered. Otto4711 03:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I sincerely doubt that four days is long enough for a valuable consensus, or lack thereof, to change. At the very least I hope not. Maxamegalon2000 05:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For heaven's sake, I had barely gotten started cleaning this up and adding sources after the last AFD. Don't delete it out from under me now! I point again to the sources I presented last time showing that parodies of this painting are indeed notable. —Celithemis 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, never mind. Don't keep this on the basis that I will improve it. I had thought I would clean up and source this information, see what was left, and then open a discussion on Talk:Nighthawks and/or Talk:Edward Hopper about where best to present it. But I'm not going to waste time working on an article that's liable to be dragged through AFD again at any moment. I have better things to do than defend this content against editors who know nothing about Hopper and simply treat all popular culture articles the same way. Do whatever you want; I won't be editing it again. —Celithemis 13:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The admin's conclusion in the last AfD was "The result was No consensus, default to Keep." It was not "merge". It's unacceptable to launch a new nom 4 days after one has finished. Celithemis is working on it, and at the very least should be allowed time to do so. This is a valuable addition to Nighthawks and shows how a classic piece of Fine Art permeates more widely into society. Tyrenius 06:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 4 days ago, no consensus, and here we go again, Modernist 14:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Overlistification#trivia proposal Bulldog123 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another editor is currently working on this article - see comment by above - —Celithemis, how about a little grace, Modernist 15:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He could work on it for a year, but that won't fix
    WP:NOT problems, which is the basis for most of these deletes. Bulldog123 21:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment How uninteresting, - a decision for everybody else - what is or isn't valid, no discussion, no differing interpretation, only one misinterpretation opting for disagreement. Every keep here is a very valid argument. Modernist 19:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every keep is in complete disregard for
WP:NOT#DIR says quite specifically "don't do this". There is no way that you can the present a argument to "do this" and claim that it is not a contradiction of policy. Jay32183 19:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
The only part of
WP:NOT#DIR
that could apply is the following:
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).
The key point about the prohibited lists is "loosely associated" (and also essentially endless). There is a specific association in this list (and it is finite). You will notice that the example cited as something acceptable per policy, namely
WP:CCC#Consensus_can_change: "This does not mean that Wikipedia ignores precedent; for example, editors should not continuously nominate an article to WP:AFD until it reaches their preferred outcome." This is clearly an attempt to do exactly that. The correct procedure at this stage is preliminary discussion, as in "An editor who thinks that a consensual decision is outdated may ask about it on the relevant talk page" (etc). That shows respect for other editors and the AfD process. I also recommend a little more confidence in the integrity of admins. Tyrenius 20:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
It has become widespread, it is not nor will it ever be acceptable. No matter how well sourced it is the article will always be a trivial collection of loosely associated topics. They aren't mini articles. It's pulling small amounts of info out of full articles because of an arbitrary po culture reference. These things are loosely related because there isn't a source that says they are closely related. I have no confidence in the integrity of an admin who does not ignore "Keeps" that contradict policy and guideline without an exceptional reason. No valid reason has been presented that this is any different from any other trivia section that got spun off to circumvent deletion. Jay32183 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, a featured article. Johnbod 21:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)All articles are built out of discrete elements and there is no one source that says they are related. The relationship exists by virtue of the subject they address. There is a very precise association in this case: the elements are derivations of the painting Nighthawks in a wider cultural context. The fact that such sections/articles are widespread shows that there is a wide consensus that they should exist. You think they shouldn't. That is a view that needs to be addressed on a bigger platform than this AfD, and taken to policy pages for community consensus. Your argument is not that this article in itself is bad, but that any such article is has no place by definition - which is not an argument to delete this particular article. I disagree with that and think that these sections/articles do have a place. However, I do have a concern as to how they are constructed, and there needs to be attention given to this per policies and guidelines. I think you should also allow that other people can have a different interpretation to you, and that doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, or that you are wrong - just different. Tyrenius 22:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure trivia, a collection of things that are loosely related, and impossible to fix. Anyone who can't handle that should leave Wikipedia. I am right, anyone supproting this article is wrong. The article blantently fails
WP:NOT#DIR, and there is not one valid argument to keep it. Jay32183 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I fail to understand a system of values that classes the influence of a world famous art work on a world famous film (
civil to others, even if they don't share your priorities. The article needs cleaning up and referencing properly, but that is not a reason to delete it, and I hope, if it is kept, that Celithemis will be willing to continue the good work he started. It may be a case of stubbing and merging back into the main article, but that is an editorial decision, not a deletion one. Tyrenius 03:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This is not an article on Nighthawks. It is a list of things that reference Nighthawks. To say these things are closely related is original research. Either the article is trivia or original research. The solution for both is delete. Citing the references doesn't matter, the problem is the list makes the assumption that everything that references Nighthawks is related, and there isn't a source for that. The problem is not fixable, deleting is the only thing that can be done. In my experience, users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy. Jay32183 03:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with the trivia issue already. It is not original research if verifiable sources demonstrate that these things reference Nighthawks. It is not an assumption that everything that references Nighthawks is related to Nighthawks. That is obvious. There is no need for the individual items to relate to each other: that is not the point of the article. It's irrelevant. Your last remark is a blatant
personal attack. Kindly refrain from negative comments on editors. Tyrenius 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
If the items on the list are not related to each other, then how does the list not violate
WP:NOT says not to do. Either they are loosely associated and should be deleted for being a directory, or the author is claiming they are closely associated and should be deleted as original research. It is not a personal attack to show you that your argument is meaningless, or that you should avoid particular arguments. Jay32183 19:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
(unindent) You are quoting the letter of the law, but have not understood its intent. The discussion is becoming repetitive. I have already said quite clearly that the relationship of the individual items to each other is irrelevant. The point of this article is their relationship to Nighthawks. As has been pointed out above (and you have ignored) your argument would mean that
WP:NOT#DIR. This article is on exactly the same basis as the Joan of Arc one. I asked you to be civil. Your response was "users who remind others to be civil are the worst violators of Wikipedia policy", clearly implying it applied to me. That is an attack and was not appreciated. Tyrenius 22:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You haven't understood anything I've said. You have apparently never read
WP:CIVIL to tell you that you are wrong and that the arguments you present are meaningless and should be avoided. Jay32183 22:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
OK, I accept you think
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I think we have made our points. Tyrenius 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
My point is that there is no valid argument to keep this article, and that it blatantly fails
"I like it" argument in disguise. Jay32183 03:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
These points have already been discussed above. Tyrenius 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then why haven't you retracted your "keep". You have no excuse for not knowing that the article fails
WP:NOT at this point. Jay32183 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I think you will find Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass applies at this stage of this thread. Tyrenius 21:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you've learned that the argument you've presented is invalid and you should never make it again, then the horse is still alive. You think you've actually made a point, but you haven't. I can't let you go on thinking that your self-contradicting argument means anything. The fact that you could admit to reading
WP:NOT#DIR and say the items on the list are not related without crossing out your "Keep" is astonishing. It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong, otherwise you'll present these meaningless arguments in future discussions and waste time and energy, mostly your own. Jay32183 21:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Edward Hopper is simply one of the best known and most popular American artists of the 20th century. Nighthawks is one of his best known and most compelling works. It is so well known, and so popular, that it has been parodied, copied, referenced, quoted and reproduced in several forms and formats. This article contains information of value, relative to Edward Hopper (the American painter), Nighthawks the painting and his other work. It should be kept. Modernist 05:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. María (críticame) 19:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, but your point is irrelevant as it doesn't apply. This is not utilitarian matter such as "a list of all the phone numbers in New York" or "a guide to the best restaurants in Paris" etc. Tyrenius 05:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the entire definition of
WP:USEFUL; utilitarian lists are merely one example listed on the page. I suggest you re-read it for better comprehension, because my point is quite relevant. This is not a valid argument to keep this article. María (críticame) 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
On the contrary that is a valid argument to keep the article. The material is relevant to at least two other articles and important links can be drawn between all the elements in the Edward Hopper article, the Nighthawks aricle and this article and sourced, obviously. The "I don't like it" argument is all I see. Modernist 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I object to the "pitch til you win" philosophy which leads someone to renominate every four days. Edison 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is not a valid reason in this discussion. We need to talk about the article, not "procedure". Dannycali 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've just done that. The objection is to the abuse of procedure, when nothing has changed, nor has there been sufficient time allowed for change to take place. Tyrenius 06:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, someone could spend a decade improving this article. Everyone's "delete" !vote would still hold because the article in itself isn't worth having. Bulldog123 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--SefringleTalk 05:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Violates
    WP:TRIVIA, total junk trivia fork, not needed. I don't care how long ago the last afd was, yes, the painting is important, it doesn't mean we need a bunch of crap spin-off articles on it. Dannycali 18:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You cite a lot of quotations from wikipedia and that's great but whether an article is notable usually comes down to editor disgression. A portion of the NightHawks article that writes two or three sentences saying that the artwork is parodied and often shown in popular culture is ok. A listing of its appearances in a Simpsons episode isn't. Bulldog123 13:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I detect an objection to the Simpsons episode inclusion, that can be discussed. But doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are valuable inclusions here that deepen the cultural impact of Hopper's painting, and merit inclusion and render this AFD erroneous, and pointless. Modernist 15:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm not saying everything there is trivia, but the grand majority is. For whatever isn't, I don't see why it can't be merged to the main article for the painting/painter. But: "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation features the diner in its picture giving clues about the final two episodes of its 2006 season.", "A 2006 TV commercial for the sleeping pill, Rozerem, includes several scenes of insomniacs at night. One is of patrons in a green-fronted, all-night diner, obviously inspired by the Hopper painting." Come on. This latter itself is completely OR-like. Bulldog123 15:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like maybe we can work something out, if it stays, we'll cut out as much of the none essential fluff as possible. Modernist 18:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the possibility of merging valid content as the main article is not that long at the moment. However, a deletion would veto this. Tyrenius 00:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is not an option at all. A directory of loosely associated terms is a directory of loosely associated terms regardless of its location. Tyrenius, you have said the items on the list are not related and that you have read
WP:NOT#DIR" is incredibly disruptive. This is not a personal attack, but a reminder that you are aware of policy and aware that you are attempting to violate it. Continuing to do so may result in blocking. Jay32183 00:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Jay32183 is correct. Again, there are absolutely no guidelines or policies that support keeping such an article. María (críticame) 00:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jay, you've already been blocked twice for attacking users who differed with you on points of policy. Is threatening Tyrenius with a block for disagreeing with you really the road you want to go down? Even if you are 100% right about
WP:NOT, Tyrenius is arguing in good faith for a course of action that he believes will result in a better encyclopedia; this is in no way "disruptive". If you really believe otherwise, I urge you to take it to the administrators' noticeboard to get the attention of uninvolved admins. I will post there myself if you don't change your approach to this debate. —Celithemis 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no chance that Tyrenius' argument is being made in good faith. Tyrenius said the items on the list are not related. Tyrenius admitted to reading
WP:CIVIL. Jay32183 02:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
This article clearly can be merged, or improved. The article is pertinent to Edward Hopper, one of the most widely known American painters of the 20th century. To argue the article is a disconnected list of loosely associated items is plain wrong, not correct, erroneous, ill conceived, with what appears to be some form of - willful stubbornness that I don't understand. The article needs work, and contains useful information, and relates to an important painting by an important painter. I agree with Tyrenius. Modernist 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no commentary about either Edward Hopper or Nighthawks. This article is a list of works that made reference to Nighthawks. Either the items on the list are loosely associated and it fails
original research. In either case, deletion is the only way to solve the problem. Jay32183 02:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmmm This article and everything in it wouldn't exist if not for
original research when placed in context. Certainly some of this article needs to go, I agree with you partially, but the whole article should stay. Modernist 02:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There are sources indicating that all of the references did in fact happen. The conclusion that those references are somehow meaningful and connected is what is original research. Here's what common sense gets you: 1 -
WP:NOT#DIR. Logic is a wonderful thing. Jay32183 02:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Excuse me? I am saying that the connections can and will be drawn, after all —Celithemis was in the process of working on the article at the time. I see no logic in the argument that fails to see the potential value in these various related items to Hoppers painting, while another editor was in the process of tying them together. Modernist 02:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You won't be able to time them together, they are completely unrelated. Claiming The Simpsons and Blade Runner are related because of Nighthawks is quite a stretch. Until you provide the source for that, which I doubt you'll be able to, you argument is meaningless. Jay32183 03:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument isn't meaningless, the various elements will be weeded out correctly, maybe the connection to TV goes, maybe the connection to film and Film noir stays. Anyway its late, tomorrow - Modernist 03:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without sources for the connectivity, everything goes. And there are no sources for the connectivity. It doesn't matter how meaningful any particular pop culture reference is, the assumption that any two products are related because of a pop culture reference is absurd. Jay32183 05:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please
WP:NOT#DIR but fail to understand the spirit of it. Items are not "loosely associated" in the meaning of the policy, when they are based around "a core topic", as this one is. Tyrenius 08:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
They are not based around a core topic. Two works of fiction referencing Nighthawks does not make an inherit relation, and you already know that, in fact you said that earlier on this page. You need to stop. The arguments you have been making contradict themselves and you are only being disruptive. I did not threaten you with a block for disagreeing with me. I reminded you that disruptive users get blocked. I'd remind you that you could get blocked if you said the article should be deleted and then only spouted nonsense like "I don't like it" or "this isn't academic enough", because that would also be disruptive. Jay32183 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The reasons for deletion are pretty insubstantial, in fact I can't see one compelling reason to delete this article -- it just appears to be "I don't like it". Remember that Wikipedia is not a
    Matthew 09:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes I did, you just failed to acknowledge them. I cited official policy (
    Matthew 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]


  • A quick search brings up straight away (screened at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston):[1] "A fifteen minute film-narrated by award-winning actor, writer, and Hopper art collector Steve Martin and produced by the National Gallery of Art-presents current views on Hopper's work, his influence on other artists ... and the influence of Hopper's work on the set designs of filmmakers, including Alfred Hitchcock."
  • The new edition of Edward Hopper by Gail Levin now has a section on "Hopper's international influence on culture, especially on contemporary art."[2]
  • "a film like "Little Caesar" (1930), with its dramatically lighted scene of thugs in a diner, reverberates years later in Hopper's "Nighthawks" (1942). And in turn, the desolate landscape we are now quick to call Hopperesque has had a profound influence on the movies. "Days of Heaven" and "Psycho" wouldn't be the same without him." New York Times ("Film makers who learned of desolation and lighting").[3]
  • BBC review of Dime Store Novels Volume 1 by Tom Waits: "This is an Edward Hopper painting set to music: drunks, waitresses, sailors and truck drivers all crop up."[4]
  • Tate Gallery show on Hopper previewed in The Guardian[5]: "given the significance of film to Hopper, and his influence on the look of American cinema, the museum is also showing a season of related films."
  • From the
    Daily Telegraph:[6]
    "Tom Waits named an album after Hopper's diner painting, Nighthawks"
Tyrenius 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the main article and based on the potential for notability that you have shown, I think a merge is the best option. A nice, meaty section on the legacy of this work will help to round out the article and give it a better chance of reaching GA or FA status; there is no need to keep this info separate, listy subarticle. Based on what you found, there is potential for notability, but for organizational purposes, I highly recommend a merge and a reconstruction so the legacy is in paragraph form in the main Nighthawks article. Not only will it serve as an excellent compromise, but it will actually improve coverage (since the meat of the topic will no longer be isolated on a listy subarticle). — Deckiller 19:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deckiller'S idea of merge sounds good to me Modernist 22:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It sounds bad to me, because writing that section from scratch is actually easier than trying to preserve the list. A well sourced section in the main article would be great, but the material here is not at all beneficial. With the list editors picked their own examples. Start from scratch and only use examples explicitly used by the critics and other writers in the works being used as references. Jay32183 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you going to write the section from scratch? If not, then leave it up to the editors that do, to choose what they find easier. There are cited/citable examples in the list already. Tyrenius 01:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's all a matter of compromising. — Deckiller 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Compromising to avoid an argument is a bad idea. As is compromising to make sure no one is upset. Merging should only be performed when there is good content that cannot stand on its own. The issue here isn't that the content can't stand on its own, it's that the content is bad. Good content of a similar spirit could be created, but not from using this as a base. Jay32183 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a complete volte-face, as you have argued all along that it is the very spirit of Nighthawks (or anything else for that matter) in popular culture that is not acceptable. Now you accept the principle that it is acceptable, and the issue is over exactly what content should be included, which is an editorial matter, not an AfD one. Creating "content of a similar spirit" but vetoing the current content even as a starting point is nonsensical. Tyrenius 01:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did not say that at all. I said this article is an indiscriminate list of loosely associated terms. I also said making the assumption that two works referencing Nighthawks makes them related is original research. If you were to write about the cultural impact of Nighthawks based on works that explain that it is different. This article does not discuss the cultural impact of Nighthawks. This article is a list of unrelated things that happen to refer to Nighthawks. The existing article has nothing to do with the section that should be written, so merging is useless because you'll just have to scrap it anyway. The main thing I've been trying to say about your arguments is that you aren't really paying attention, and you've shown that yet again. To simplify things for you: well sourced article on cultural impact of Nighthawks = good, indiscriminate list of things that happen to refer to Nighthawks = bad. The first does not fail
              synthesis of new material based on those sources. Jay32183 01:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply
              ]
        • Well, I'm thinking beyond the AfD, since this AfD is likely to end in no consensus. — Deckiller 01:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this closes as anything other than delete then the closing admin will have done a terrible job. Not one valid argument to keep this material has been made. Jay32183 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Probably, but I think it's a good idea to set things on a possible merging footing should the closing admin do a "terrible job", so that we could all be saved another DRV. (Yes, "compromising to avoid an argument", which is a rather bold statement to begin with, but this is an obvious case where a lengthy DRV would, in the grand scheme of things, be over something that is not productive.) It's often a lot easier to remove unsourced content and semi-original research from an article than to AfD something. — Deckiller 02:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is plenty of material to work with there, either keep it or merge it, either is ok, per Tyrenius. Modernist 01:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, merge useful content. Deltabeignet 05:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If material is merged, the article is redirected, not deleted. — Deckiller 05:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Relevant material covered elsewhere so no merge necessary. No redirect necessary either as simple search will show the proper article. Stop the pop culture insanity. --Tbeatty 03:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you point out where it is covered, as the influence of the painting in culture does not currently appear in the main article Nighthawks. Tyrenius 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every line in the article has a blue link. At best this is a category. --Tbeatty 03:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting point. However, it does mean the information is scattered, and therefore a problem to find. The category idea is another solution, but not, I think, as viable as having the information in one place related to the core topic, namely the painting. As regards "pop culture insanity", I'm afraid pop culture is here to stay as a major, if not the major, cultural force in society, whether we like it or not. Tyrenius 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand a request for clarification such as your first response, but if you simply want to discuss my view, there is a discussion page. Your viewpoint is noteworthy but not as a comment under every Delete vote. --Tbeatty 04:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have brought up some points not mentioned before which merit consideration and a response. This is a discussion, not a vote. You exaggerate somewhat about "a comment under every Delete vote". There are 12 deletes. I have commented on 7. 1 was to point out a technicality (later also pointed out by Deckiller); 2 were to ask for specific arguments applying to this article rather than generalised arguments (which would have strengthened the delete view, except there was no response); 1 delete was a result was changed to merge. This leaves 3 other deletes I have commented on. I comment where I think it will be useful, and it has also motivated the provision of useful sources. You should be prepared your view to be developed further, but there is no obligation to respond. Tyrenius 04:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is about a painting that has taken on a life of its own apart from the original. The article is about the form that life has taken in culture. One need not have sources that tie together the areas in popular culture where the painting has impact because it is logically understood that the same point of origin exists in every case, and that ultimately is the original painting. Bus stop 03:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nighthawks_in_popular_culture_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138163427"