511:, 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.
48:. DGG says, "Howard Hughes is a legendary figure..." That's true, and it is why Knowledge 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
322:
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
260:
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
467:
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
532:
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.
56:
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
596:(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.
373:
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.
52:, 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.
486:
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
Knowledge, and should be kept separate from his biographical article. Sources like
247:
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.
488:
570:
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.
369:
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
210:, 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
392:
274:
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,
547:
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.
113:
86:
81:
90:
73:
413:
123:- 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
233:
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?
282:
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.
147:
that another article was deleted doesnt justify deleting this one. Its the reverse ofothercrapexists, and just as irrelevant an argument.
358:
220:
600:
588:
574:
560:
537:
522:
499:
472:
454:
436:
423:
402:
378:
364:
342:
314:
302:
286:
265:
252:
237:
226:
194:
158:
139:
338:
17:
77:
353:
584:
no RSes tell us that Howard Hughes is notable in popular culture apart from what could, should, and is said in his bio.
69:
61:
468:
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.
278:) is not inherited by every song that mentions his name and every fictional character that, without anything even
131:. The only worthwhile portion is the section on portrayals of Hughes on film and I have added that information to
615:
36:
614:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
326:
585:
492:
334:
556:
450:
349:
597:
184:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
310:
as most of these are trivial/one line mentions. Merge the major ones with the main article
128:
207:
204:
571:
534:
375:
330:
262:
549:
518:
469:
443:
283:
234:
215:
154:
136:
132:
49:
433:
249:
173:
124:
107:
420:
399:
275:
323:
Mandsford cluttering with their mindless chatter to stalemate a bad article.
311:
299:
513:
149:
135:. This is unsupportable as a separate article and should be deleted.
170:
Well seeing how you have merged the relevant parts, just redirect --
356:
and also remember that you need to sign all posts. Sincerely, --
608:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
57:
independent article is unwarranted until sources come to light.
103:
99:
95:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
441:Why are occurrences in popular culture "trivia"?
618:). No further edits should be made to this page.
432:as per more trivia-cruft without verification.--
127:and the third section on references in songs is
8:
203:right off the bat, because the article is
412:: This debate has been included in the
393:list of Transportation-related deletions
391:: This debate has been included in the
7:
24:
414:list of People-related deletions
70:Howard Hughes in Popular Culture
62:Howard Hughes in Popular Culture
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
601:22:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
589:21:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
575:20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
561:06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
538:20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
523:03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
500:23:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
491:can be used for verification.
473:12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
455:06:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
437:22:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
424:15:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
403:15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
238:06:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
159:03:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
379:16:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
365:05:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
354:Knowledge:No_personal_attacks
343:22:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
315:05:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
303:04:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
287:01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
266:00:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
253:23:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
227:23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
216:Howard_Hughes#Popular_culture
195:22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
140:22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
360:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
222:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
635:
371:Back to the Future Part II
261:unusual historical icon.
611:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
199:I am tempted to say
507:a legendary figure
509:in popular culture
350:Knowledge:Civility
426:
417:
405:
396:
345:
329:comment added by
125:original research
626:
613:
552:
497:
446:
418:
408:
397:
387:
363:
361:
324:
225:
223:
218:. Sincerely, --
193:
190:
187:
179:
176:
111:
93:
34:
634:
633:
629:
628:
627:
625:
624:
623:
622:
616:deletion review
609:
550:
493:
444:
421:John Vandenberg
400:John Vandenberg
359:
357:
221:
219:
208:well-referenced
188:
185:
177:
174:
171:
84:
68:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
632:
630:
621:
620:
604:
603:
591:
586:Carlossuarez46
578:
577:
564:
563:
541:
540:
526:
525:
502:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
460:
459:
458:
457:
427:
406:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
317:
305:
292:
291:
290:
289:
269:
268:
255:
241:
240:
230:
229:
197:
164:
163:
162:
161:
118:
117:
64:
59:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
631:
619:
617:
612:
606:
605:
602:
599:
595:
592:
590:
587:
583:
580:
579:
576:
573:
569:
566:
565:
562:
558:
554:
553:
546:
543:
542:
539:
536:
531:
528:
527:
524:
520:
516:
515:
510:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
490:
485:
482:
481:
474:
471:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
447:
440:
439:
438:
435:
431:
428:
425:
422:
415:
411:
407:
404:
401:
394:
390:
386:
380:
377:
372:
368:
367:
366:
362:
355:
351:
347:
346:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
321:
318:
316:
313:
309:
306:
304:
301:
297:
294:
293:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
264:
259:
256:
254:
251:
246:
243:
242:
239:
236:
232:
231:
228:
224:
217:
213:
209:
206:
202:
198:
196:
192:
191:
181:
180:
169:
166:
165:
160:
156:
152:
151:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
134:
133:Howard Hughes
130:
126:
122:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
50:Elvis Presley
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
610:
607:
598:Calliopejen1
593:
581:
567:
548:
544:
529:
512:
508:
504:
494:
483:
442:
429:
409:
388:
370:
348:Please read
319:
307:
295:
279:
257:
244:
214:deleting to
211:
200:
183:
172:
167:
148:
120:
119:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
325:—Preceding
280:approaching
276:notability
205:incredibly
572:Dannycali
535:Dannycali
495:Bláthnaid
376:Mandsford
331:Dannycali
298:per Roi.
263:Mandsford
551:Melsaran
489:this one
470:Otto4711
445:Melsaran
339:contribs
327:unsigned
284:Otto4711
235:Canuckle
137:Otto4711
114:View log
568:Comment
530:Comment
434:JForget
250:MarkBul
212:without
87:protect
82:history
54:Sources
594:Delete
582:Delete
430:Delete
320:Delete
308:Delete
245:Delete
168:Delete
129:trivia
121:Delete
91:delete
46:Delete
352:and
312:Corpx
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
557:talk
545:Keep
519:talk
505:Keep
484:Keep
451:talk
410:Note
389:Note
335:talk
300:Artw
296:Keep
258:Keep
201:keep
175:Chil
155:talk
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
514:DGG
419:--
416:.
398:--
395:.
178:dzy
150:DGG
112:– (
559:)
521:)
453:)
341:)
337:•
189:lk
186:Ta
182:¤
157:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
555:(
517:(
449:(
333:(
153:(
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.