Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Hughes 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. DGG says, "Howard Hughes is a legendary figure..." That's true, and it is why Wikipedia has an article on the man. There is a difference, though, between being famous (which causes one to appear in popular culture) and being "significant to popular culture." This subtle difference is best perceived through sources: are there any books discussing "Howard Hughes' transforming influence on popular culture"? There are none cited. (In contrast, see Elvis Presley, where at least five such books are referenced, and I have another three on my shelf that are not.) This is not to denigrate Hughes' influence, but only to suggest that one cannot discuss his influence in appropriate encyclopedic tone without such sources. Sources are what distinguishes genuine "in popular culture" articles from mere "trivia collections", and the consensus is that they are absent here. What content is here should be easily merged to Howard Hughes, if it isn't already, and I will gladly restore with that purpose in mind on request. An independent article is unwarranted until sources come to light.

Howard Hughes in Popular Culture[edit]

Delete - similar to the deleted list for Bill Gates. The entire second section on fictional characters who supposedly may have been in some way fashioned on Hughes is original research and the third section on references in songs is trivia. The only worthwhile portion is the section on portrayals of Hughes on film and I have added that information to Howard Hughes. This is unsupportable as a separate article and should be deleted. Otto4711 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that another article was deleted doesnt justify deleting this one. Its the reverse ofothercrapexists, and just as irrelevant an argument. DGG (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well seeing how you have merged the relevant parts, just redirect --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am tempted to say keep right off the bat, because the article is incredibly well-referenced, perhaps the best I've seen in terms of quantity of references for one of these kinds of articles brought up here lately. With that said, I also would not oppose a merge and redirect without deleting to Howard_Hughes#Popular_culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aren't you a bit skeptical that this list of books about Howard Hughes the person actually serve as sources for punk-rock songs about him? Canuckle 06:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see original research in all these articles. How do I know Howard Hughes was really mentioned in the Banana Splits, or some other foolishness? Unless every entry has a citation to a secondary source, I can't check many of these. MarkBul 23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Roi notes, it is well-referenced, and Hughes remains a legendary figure, more than 30 years after his death and more than 50 after his last public appearance. Maybe it's that he was a billionaire imprisoned in his own germ-free world, but The Aviator is only the most recent treatment of this unusual historical icon. Mandsford 00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And The Aviator, along with the other filmed representations of Hughes, are in his article. The legendariness of Hughes is irrelevant, since his legendariness (or in Wiki-speak, notability) is not inherited by every song that mentions his name and every fictional character that, without anything even approaching a source (so where you're getting the idea this is well-referenced is a mystery), some editor has decided bears some resemblance to Hughes. Otto4711 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roi. Artw 04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most of these are trivial/one line mentions. Merge the major ones with the main article Corpx 05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another junky IPC article full of trivia. Otto did the right thing and merged the film info. It isn't even truly referenced, it just has a list of books about him, which can easily be put on the main article. Not to mention the usual inclusionist IPC fanbois in Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and Mandsford cluttering with their mindless chatter to stalemate a bad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannycali (talk • contribs) 22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and also remember that you need to sign all posts. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't mind being called a cluttering mindless chattering stalemater-- other then being compared to a stale tomato-- but... an inclusionist IPC fanboi? That hurts. Remember the deleted scene in Back to the Future Part II where he was in the 21st Century and someone said, "What are you, an inclusionist IPC fanboi?". And Michael J. Fox, as Marty McFly, turned around and said, "Nobody...calls me...whatever it was that guy said." Nor did I like it when Don Rickles called someone an incl... never mind. Mandsford 16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per more trivia-cruft without verification.--JForget 22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are occurrences in popular culture "trivia"? Melsaran (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because simple mentions of a famous person's name do not contribute to the encyclopedic knowledge of the person. It does not add anything to our understanding of Hughes to have a list of every time he's mentioned in a book or a TV show or a song. I think it can be safely assumed that any famous person is going to have his name mentioned on TV a few times; we don't need a list of every single instance of it. Otto4711 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and prune. Howard Hughes is an iconic figure that has appeared as a character in many films and books. I think that this information is suitable for Wikipedia, and should be kept separate from his biographical article. Sources like this one can be used for verification. Bláthnaid 23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a legendary figure in popular culture, as the article demonstrates. Calling something "trivia-cruft' is a pretty meaningless term that could be applied to almost any article whatsoever. To say the notability "is not inherited by every song..." is true--it means that a song mentioning Hughes is not by that fact alone notable enough for an article, which is undeniable. But it does not mean that when a song by a notable artist is based on Hughes, that fact is not worth mentioning. items in an article just have to be relevant to the topic, not notable themselves. DGG (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the above two comments, this is not a discussion on how notable Howard Hughes is, that's been proven, this is to find out if a trivia based article belongs on this site. And it doesn't, as plenty of other iconic figures with similar pages have been deleted, and will continue to be deleted. Dannycali 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the OR bits (mostly the second section). Nothing wrong with this list, and the "it's trivial cruft" argument isn't very compelling. The list is very well-referenced. Melsaran (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look at the page more closely, there are no references on it, it's just a listing of books about him, which can easily go at the end of his main article. No item on this list has a reference on it. Dannycali 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RSes tell us that Howard Hughes is notable in popular culture apart from what could, should, and is said in his bio. Carlossuarez46 21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (merge a tiny bit). Notable film/TV portrayals should be covered in the main article, but random mentions do not contribute to an understanding of Hughes. As was noted above, every famous person is mentioned in the media. Nothing about the way in which Hughes is mentioned is notable. Calliopejen1 22:02, 14 September 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.