Deletion of Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Procedural errors cannot prevent results from a discussion. As such, every keep here is not a valid argument. Keep arguments are only valid if based on the criteria for inclusion. The article cannot be fixed, so it doesn't matter that some one is working on it. It isn't a source issue, it's an indiscriminate information issue. Even if everything were properly sourced, the article fails  and the only acceptable result to this AFD is '''Delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Violates  and , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: As numerous users stated above, this article violates #INFO.  I do not necessarily agree with the procedure for nominating this article again so quickly, but that is not the issue here -- arguing that it ''is'' the issue is not a basis to keep the article.  It should be deleted or kept according to guideline and policy, and so far no ...in popular culture AfD has yielded a compelling reason based on guideline/policy to keep such an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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 #PAPER|paper encyclopaedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: mdash;somebody mentioned Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. The article features several secondary (and primary) sources, so it's clearly notable. The format it takes is also different. However, we can't just assume notability; we have to ''show'' it. Just like we have to |verify content, we have to ''show that something needs extra coverage/a subarticle for an encyclopedic overview''. Such a notability hasn't been proven here: have books and/or articles about Nighthawks and their cultural influence been published? &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)