Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferris Bueller's Day Off 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. The article was rewritten during the discussion, leaving the nomination and the arguments for deletion mostly moot, and since then, most comments have favored a merger, which I suggest should be discussed on the article talk page now.  Sandstein  06:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced trivia (WP:RS, WP:N, WP:TRIVIA that was created without attribution and still has all the problems listed at WP:POPCULTURE. I read through the whole list and saw very little to nothing that should be in the main article if it was a Featured Article, enforcing my point that this is trivia and doesn't require merging (even then, it is fully available in the page history of the main article). The list was prodded and second-prodded in February, but the prod-tag was removed, claiming this list was appropriate and was not trivia (I strongly disagree). – sgeureka t•c 12:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose any kind of merge. None of the content of the list is significant to understanding the film. Allusion and reference are some of the most straightforward elements of writing, and their mere usage does not merit mention. I see no evidence that any of these items has had any impact on popular understanding of the film itself, and they should thus not be part of the original article. Mintrick (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that a recommendation for deletion? Because AfDs discuss deletion proposals (as was the intent of my nomination here), not merge proposals. – sgeureka t•c 14:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, I've found that deletion debates for these articles can, in fact, end in a merge. I'm not sure I really favor deletion, as new and inexperienced users (IP editors) often add to these lists, and we may not want to drive them away. On the other hand, I don't really think the content is encyclopedic, so deletion is hardly a terrible outcome. I simply want to forestall any attempts at merging, while remaining neutral on the question of deletion. Mintrick (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (no merge) This isn't just "miscellaneous information", it's outright trivia. The collection here is not related to the movie at all as its just a collection of random facts and snippets that violate WP:TRIVIA which states Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts. and goes on to state A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table. The parent article is already well-developed so it doesn't need the trivia section to suggest further developments, and none of these actually would help the article since they aren't related to the subject matter. It wouldn't need more than a passing mention in the main article that states the obvious (is: FBDO has recieved numerous mentions in popular culture). This collection also violates WP:N in that the spinoff subject isn't notable in its own right as the topic (the film's appearance in popular culture hasn't recieved significant coverage in third-party sources.  As it stands, this article contains no citations so even if it was about a notable subject (which it is not) it could be deleted as a synthesis.  Overall, this is a orignal research about a nonnotable topic which goes against the trivia guidelines.  This can't be fixed by cleanup as even a well-cited article on this subject would fail WP:TRIVIA and WP:N, so the only viable option is to delete it.  A one sentence mention (without any specific examples to encourage its reformation) in the parent article is sufficient.  Them  From  Space  17:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but trim. The article is in pretty poor state, but there's a lot here that can be improved.  This is a film that has had non-trivial effects on popular culture, including popularising a catchphrase ("Anyone... Anyone?... Bueller?") that is now (i.e., over 20 years after the release of the film) widely used outside of its original context.  This article documents two uses of the phrase in other cultural works, and Google reports "about" 81,000 uses of this phrase in its index (I know that the "about" figure is unreliable, but I've verified by clicking through that there are over 1,000 of them).   This film has clearly had an important effect on popular culture, and therefore merits an "in popular culture" article.  That said, this particular article needs a lot of work to come up to standard. JulesH (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What's preventing that information from being in the main article? This is much too long and unwieldy, but a popular catchprase might warrant its own section in the main article.  If covered in an encyclopedic manner it would add to the encyclopedia while preventing this listcruft from accumulating.  Them  From  Space  17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete good god. Fun movie, i enjoyed it at the time. But this is a ridiculuous fansite content fork, full of trivia and non-encyclopedic garbage.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication that "Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture" is the subject of reliable sources and the article as it exists is a trivial repository for everything that in the unsourced opinion of any editor who stumbles across it is similar to FBDO. Strongly oppose merging any of this material to the film's article per WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. Otto4711 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I remember a similar article that was deleted in 2007, and it may be that the content was merged back into the page about the film. As in 2007, this is the "in popular culture" article at its very worst: unsourced, and composed of uninteresting trivia about mentions of the beloved 1986 movie.  Arguably, the phrase "Anyone? Anyone?" still gets a laugh 23 years later, and there may be a bunch of 22 year old men named "Ferris", but I'm not sure that the film had a lasting influence on pop culture.  Mandsford (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Showing how a movie could end up influencing so many other types of media over such a large period of time, is encyclopedic. Perhaps an article listing how popular culture can influence itself.  List whatever series had the most impact in other media.   D r e a m Focus  00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable pop culture, in scores of citations. This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep use in notable works is what makes such articles appropriate. That is not trivia; trivia is the accumulation of miscellaneous odd details about the production This is  a discussion of the pattern of  what was described earlier as "Allusion and reference, some of the most straightforward elements of writing"--and therefore important and notable.  We want to do more than just "understand the film;"  per NOT PLOT, we want to do a great deal more, we want to understand the significance of the film. The only question about whether it should be a separate article is the amount of material, and this is enough. DGG (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the question about whether or not we should have a particular article is notability of the subject matter. Unless the topic of this movie being in popular culture has recieved more than trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, than per deletion policy it should be removed. Our deletion policy reads Reasons for deletion include... articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. The burden of proof is on those who assert that the subject of the film's appearance in popular culture is notable.  A list (even well-sorted) of facts doesn't show any notability as verifiability != notability. As it stands, nothing on this page is encyclopedic, meaning nothing is discussed at all, it's just listed as (assumed) fact.  This is just a laundry list of trivia, and WP:TRIVIA reads in bold Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts.  If that doesn't apply to the creation of this article, what does it apply to?  Them  From  Space  02:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) use in notable works is what makes such articles appropriate - um, no, reliable sources that are about the subject of the article are what makes such articles appropriate. "A VHS copy of the film can be seen in Clerks" tells us nothing about either FBDO, Clerks, or FBDO in pop culture in the absence of a reliable source that demonstrates that there was a reason for this tape box to appear rather than some other random tape box from the prop department or Kevin Smith's stack of tapes at home or wherever it came from. Holding up a ferret that's called "Ferret Bueller" as opposed to, say, Ferret Fawcett or Will Ferret, tells us nothing about ferrets, SNL, FBDO or FBDO in pop culture. This article is just one more example of editors manufacturing meaning out of randomness, advancing the synthesized notion that a few dozen passing mentions in the course of a quarter century means that FBDO in popular culture is a topic of encyclopedic study. News flash: it's not. Otto4711 (talk) 02:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trim severely. Obviously, the TV series is influenced by the film and the many direct spoofs are relevant in showing how the film influenced popular culture, but the random posters appearing in the background and scene similarities that can be explained because they're otherwise common in film need to go. Some points are relevant to the effect the film had on popular culture, but clearly not all of them. - Mgm|(talk) 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you identify these instances so that it would still make sense to keep the list, or perform that trim yourself? All the somewhat keep-worthy stuff doesn't even make up a line in the parent article. – sgeureka t•c 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand There are a lot more references to this movie than what is mentioned and considering the long list of references (and potentially longer list), this article should not be merged. If a poster for it is shown, I think it should be kept as it is a visual reference.  However, this article does need citations.  Quistisffviii (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Expand the frequent pop culture references to the movie demonstrate notability. The main expansion that is needed is the addition of sources to support the many connections. Alansohn (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please copy and paste the portion of the general notability guideline which supports your contention that frequent pop culture references to a topic is the Wikipedia standard for notability. Please cite the sources that substantively cover the concept of "Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture". Otto4711 (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Should be easy to source (I would think) and seems like it has had a significant impact on popular culture. That said, the article needs significant improvements. -User:Hobit
 * Keep as with Catcher in the Rye, Louie Louie, and Animal House who'd've guessed...? -65.246.126.130 (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A laundry list of mostly unsourced and irrelevant trivia. Articles like this give Wikipedia a bad name; we're supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fansite. PC78 (talk) 08:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want to eliminate anything you don't like, because you believe it makes the wikipedia look bad. Is that your motivation here?  Just curious about your thought process.   D r e a m Focus  14:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. What part of "mostly unsourced and irrelevant trivia" are you struggling with? The article fails WP:N, WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, and probably other guidelines as well. PC78 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which opposes "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This is a list of items whose only relationships with each other is referencing a film.  None of these items are "famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic"; they have their own fame and do not get any kind of boost for referencing Ferris Bueller's Day Off.  Like other editors said, it is straightforward trivia.  If anyone can find significant coverage from reliable sources about how the film has made its mark in popular culture, please include it at the film article itself since that article is not lacking space.  Unless that article grows to 100+ KB, there is zero need to have this sub-topic floating around in its own mess of an article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: Ferris Bueller (TV series) is the only item that is famous. None of the others come close to qualifying. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: this movie is extremely culturally significant, that's why its been parodied so many times. I don't see how WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies to it (personally I think that rule should be overturned anyway, it makes no sense at all, its only purpose is to support the deletionists' agenda). TomCat4680 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to include reliable sources at the film article saying, "Because of the film's popularity, it has been parodied many times in subsequent media." We don't need indiscriminate examples of every single time it has ever been mentioned in the public eye.  In addition, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is under WP:NOT, an official Wikipedia policy.  If you disagree with policy, please start discussion expressing your concerns at WT:NOT.  This is not the place to snub one's nose at policy. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll snub my nose at policy all I want. WP:TRIVIA is another stupid rule that makes no sense except to push the deletionist agenda. So is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:POPCULTURE. If I think a rule makes no sense I'm not going to follow it. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * wait a minute. it's true we can Ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia, but usually we dont have to. WP:TRIVIA is a guideline, & therefore flexible, & it does not prohibit this sort of article; it practice it means what we interpret it here to mean.  WP:POPCULTURE is an essay, and not a rule at all--but it does not prohibit them either, just says to do them carefully. ORIGINAL RESEARCH however is policy, excellent and extremely important  policy, that we all should be very reluctant to deprecate. But it is not violated here. Collecting together scattered material is not OR, but the usual way of writing an encyclopedia. If there is undocumentable material, or OR amounting to opinion and synthesis, it should be removed. Learn about policy, and how to apply it carefully and with judgment. Deleting this is applying it without good judgment.  DGG (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The original research here is not the gathering of disparate bits of information. The OR is the synthesis of taking those disparate bits of information and drawing a conclusion from them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly trivia. I'd hate to see every single popular film article have a page like this. I enjoy reading about these types of details, but it doesn't need to be here. I'd recommend adding a prose section in the "Impact" section in the film article about the most notable occurrences with sources. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * not meant personally, but it is often the very fans of the material who dislike our having articles on it. A sort of reverse ILIKEIT. DGG (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - since this AFD opened, despite the vigorous protestations of those who insist that this article would be easily sourced and despite the article's being flagged for rescue, the only sourcing of substance that's been added to the article is "Movie connections" material from IMDB. IMDB is not a reliable source and the fact that IMDB contributors have noticed the inclusion of passing references to FBDO in other movies or TV shows does not constitute the basis of an encyclopedia article. It seems clear that there are no reliable sources for the subject "Ferris Bueller's Day Off in popular culture" and that this article remains a repository of trivia. No one in favor of keeping this article has made the case for it and indeed they resort to such outbursts as "I'll snub my nose at policy all I want" and wild accusations of a so-called "deletionist agenda" which to my way of thinking is all but an admission that the article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is not referenced for a start, IMDB is not a reliable source. Secondly these "refs" only prove that Ferris Bueller has been mentioned in other programs/films, not documenting it's impact on popular culture. Also per Erik. Ryan 4314   (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as non-trivial information verified in reliable sources, which means it is unoriginal research. This discriminate list is presented in a non-directory manner.  No reason beyond trumped up versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT has presented for deletion.  A true reading of policies and guidelines would suggest we keep this article.  And in any case, as it is interesting, useful, discriminate, and relevant to many readers and editors, we can always ignore all rules as it is far more important that we retain information our editors come here to edit than adhere to every last word written on some obscure and ever changing guideline written by a minority of our community.  Moreover, obviously readers and editors well beyond the handful commenting in this snapshot in time discussion come here looking for this information.  There is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever why we would not at worst redirect with edit history intact.  One could perhaps make a case for a merge, but there is no real reason beyond an WP:IDONTLIKEIT to not try something else per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.  Finally, I am beginning a significant revision that addresses and nullifies many of the concerns expressed above by reworking the article to not simply be a list, but rather a discussion on its reception in popular culture that will focus on secondary source analysis.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to keep per revisions by A.Nobody. This is not the same article that was originally nominated, and the improvements show that an "in popular culture" article really can be about something's influence on pop culture.  Not that long ago, when it seemed like every Wikipedia article included a moronic reference to The Simpsons or Family Guy, an "ipc" article usually meant that silly stuff was being separated from a serious encyclopedic article.   Since the advent of entertainment wikias, there's been less of this on the original Wikipedia.  This has been transformed into something more intelligent. Mandsford (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for content about a film's role in popular culture to be apart from the film article at this point. If that article was bursting at its seams with content, then such a section could be one of a few that could be split off.  At the moment, this is not the case, seeing how another rescue of this kind of article scrapes the very bottom of the barrel and tries to play up the topic on its own as much as possible. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the recent edits, I have to say that this should be merged into the main article. It is, as Mansford said, no longer about appearances of the film in popular culture and if this is kept and not merged the title itself should be changed to reflect the new balance.  Why have this as a separate article at all?  The new "academic analysis", "characterization" and "music sections" would bolster the main article and make it fully encyclopedic and not just a plot rehash.  Sure, most of this artical is still trivial and should go as name-drops of the filim in other media aren't encyclopedic. But if we would merge the newly added academic material to the main article it would distinguish it from around 95% of other film articles. It's a win-win situation as all encyclopedic material here would be retained per WP:PRESERVE and the original article would be strengthened.  Them  From  Space  19:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I copied the academic content to the film article. The film article is not lacking in space, so the content best belongs there.  The presence of such content does not justify the presence of miscellaneous bits of trivia, so I have removed this trivia from the article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would strongly suggest to the nominator to use a merge tag next time. The first edit of the nominator in this article was the nomination for deletion, in violation of WP:PRESERVE.  Articles for Deletion by their very nature often tend to be contentious and adversarial, making editors choose stark opposing sides, so the opportunity for comprimise is harder in such a forum. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep well referenced article now, I will strongly consider supporting a merge later. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Closing administrator please note the article has gone through extensive revisions since the AfD nomination. with the addition of several references. Ikip (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also please note that useful contributions are already replicated at Ferris Bueller's Day Off, so nothing is going to be lost. Quite a few editors don't believe in this as a valid topic for its own article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 06:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included on Talk:Ferris Bueller's Day Off Ikip (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * closing administrator please note that the extensive revisions did not do anything to address the fact that this is a trivial, indiscriminate and non-encyclopedic content fork and should be deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2009 (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.