Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPS 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 no consensus to delete. W.marsh 04:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

COPS in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Like many "...in popular culture" entries, this articles fails to meet both Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. Should some of the popular culture references be notable enough, they should be included in the main article. Tomj 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the important parts are covered in the single paragraph already in the article. Unanalyzed lists of parodies are not useful. --Eyrian 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Delete  per nom and general unacceptability of most "popular culture" lists. Pharmboy 02:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Changed after considering Mansford's arguement. It has been on a long time and has actually been influential.  Still don't like the fact that it is written similar to a trivia list, but these kind of articles almost have to be this way.  I still don't like (which isn't a reason to delete) but this is tough one to call, so will withdraw delete and stay neutral.   Pharmboy 02:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep A pop culture list that actually shows an influence on popular culture. "COPS", like "Wikipedia", has inspired a host of imitations.  The Haley/Barbour show was a groundbreaker in reality television, and has created an entire genre of videotaped, cheap to produce, reality shows, as the article indicates.  I agree with Eyrian that the list of parodies weakens a good article.  Mandsford 02:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, because a paragraph (and not a list) about the impact of COPS belongs in it's own article. A list of imitations or inspirations isn't notable.  CaveatLectorTalk 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, the list of shows inspired by this doesn't even belong here, the rest of it is WP:NOT a directory of non-notable references. Crazysuit 02:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I am the "creator" of this article, though I don't particularly have any atachment to it. The entirety of the contents were spun off from the COPS (TV series) article several days ago, where the content was overwhelming the article.  There is sufficient material to warrant its own article, I believe, it falls in line with Summary style, and is really necessary to the overall quality of the main article and further expansion of the subject of this one, as COPS has had significant cultural impact, especially in the United States.  --Edward Morgan Blake 09:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - what isn't loosely associated trivia is original research. The article assumes that every show that follows a similar format must by definition be inspired by COPS despite no one's bothering to offer up any sort of reliable sourcing to that effect. Any TV show that's been around for a while is going to accumulate a parody or two and some mentions on other TV shows. That does not make a "popular culture" article warranted. Wanting the article kept to keep the information out of other articles is not a valid argument. Otto4711 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm with Otto all the way. I would have no problem re-merging a small amount of the content- that is, any show that is verifiably derivative and/or a parody of COPS (e.g. Reno 911! and Blotter!) should be mentioned- with citation- in the COPS article, and nothing else. Simply mentioning that a single episode of a TV series or a certain scene in a movie satirizes or references the show is not, in and of itself, notable, and thus, a collection of these is still non-notable; therefore, this information need not be placed in the COPS article or anywhere else in WP. -- Kicking222 17:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response If you look at the closed deletion logs, you will see that such (most of the time trivial)lists are in the process of being deleted. Tomj 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a good thing™. Burntsauce 19:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel this comment should be added to Martha Stewart in popular culture. --Eyrian 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Careful what you ask for, you might get it. Pharmboy 20:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back with parent article and drastically pare down.--Old Hoss 19:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this has the feel of fancruft and it is original research. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This !vote attacks the nominator rather than adressing the concerns raised. This is an alarming trend I have seen in AfD votes, and I'd rather see the article deleted than have to tolerate such shocking bad faith or attribution of views not expressed by the nominator or those who expressed a desire to delete.  --Edward Morgan Blake 17:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There's too much encyclopedic information here to merge to the COPS article. --Oakshade 16:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Oakshade. --10:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per AndyJones. Mathmo Talk 23:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I haven;t commented before, because I must admit that I've never seen the show and knew nothing about it. But on reading  thisdiscussion and the article i've learned a little, and this shows the value of these articles in an encyclopedia. This isn't an exercise to see what we can do with a wiki, but a practical use of a wiki to build something that will be used. Useful alone isn't enough, but it should be one of the factors--else why are we doing this--to exercise our skills in writing, or in argument? DGG (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2007 (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.