Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Law & Order plot inspirations


 * 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 per WP:OR WP:V WP:RS and a few WP:BLP concerns thrown in -Docg 00:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Law & Order plot inspirations

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is pure original research. Hnsampat 21:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

--Hnsampat 21:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As much as I like the idea of showing real-world relevance, not a single source is provided; there is no way (at least, no way currently included in the article) to verify the assertions.  ◄    Zahakiel    ►   21:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has sevral links to wikipedi pages about the real crimes. come on wikipedia pages, what more do u want? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDud88 (talk • contribs)
 * Reply - Linking to the pages about the crimes is all well and good, but the topic of the articles is the connection between those crimes and specific episodes of the TV series. The descriptions of the crimes do not (I don't think) provide sourced links between the events in real life and the fictional portrayal on the screen.  That's what would be required to sustain these entries.   ◄    Zahakiel    ►   21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional reply - Also, Wikipedia can't be cited as a source for itself. In any case, the most that those articles can indicate is that the actual crimes occurred. It doesn't prove that Law & Order intentionally copied those crimes, regardless of how obvious the connection may seem. --Hnsampat 21:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I should also note that some of the episodes here bear only passing resemblence to the actual events that supposedly inspired them. For example, it is claimed that the first-season Law & Order episode "The Reaper's Helper" was based off of Jack Kevorkian solely because both the episode and Kevorkian deal with euthanasia. However, the circumstances in the episode and the Kevorkian case are completely different. Kevorkian invented a "suicide machine" to help the terminally ill kill themselves via injection of lethal drugs. "The Reaper's Helper" is about someone who commits "mercy killings" by shooting people with AIDS. So, these articles are not just original research; they are often really bad original research. --Hnsampat 22:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, this article is a tough cookie. It is purely original research, and hedges on WP:SYN to assemble its data.  But consider this - for the most part, the facts presented are verifiable, and hits on reliable sources - if only by extension.  One thing to keep in mind here is that L&O also bases its story lines on real cases - so material is there, it's just a case of finding it, and as is so far demonstrated, much of the material is right here on Wikipedia.  Hnsampat makes a good point, in that WP should not cite itself, however in this case it would make more sense to reference the relevant articles on WP - which, in turn, should have their own sources per policy.  Based on these details, I'm going to be bold here and ignore the rules.  Strong keep, but let's add the reference as necessary about L&O in general using real cases for its storylines.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I think WP s a reasonable source for the details of the cases--that's just like referring to sections to support the parent article. But the connections are OR--except that I agree with Dennis that it should be possible to source each one, for the ed. will not be the only person to have noticed this. I'd be willing to say that if an effort were made to start doing so during the AfD the articles should be kept while the rest is being done.DGG 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to comment - The problem is, to avoid original research through synthesis of published sources, we would have to find a source quoting a L&O producer or writer saying that a given episode is based off of event X. Otherwise, we'll get situations like with "The Reaper's Helper" above. That episode could have been based on any number of high-profile euthanasia cases and we're forced to speculate on which one was the inspiration. (In this case, the article speculates that it was based off of Jack Kevorkian, which I think is incorrect.) Furthermore, episodes often combine several similar real-life events to create a new story. It would take quite a bit of detective work here to figure all of this out. In other words, we'd be engaging in tons and tons of original research here. The only way that this article can stay is if we get information "straight from the horse's mouth" (i.e. straight from L&O writers). Otherwise, we are guessing as to the writers' intentions, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish guessing.--Hnsampat 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually why I'm pulling the WP:IAR card. That the stories are based off of actual crimes is not really a foregone conclusion until you examine it, and I'm not entirely sure that we'd be able to find anything on this without a significant amount of research.  No question that we should find one.  Look far enough and we'll probably find something.  Basically, I say give this some time beyond the AfD, and revisit later. =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 03:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - If you can get a consensus on WP:IAR that's fine, and I won't be heartbroken; but I still see insurmountable problems for this article, which is why the rules are there to be (at times) judiciously ignored. We're able to ignore the rules if they "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia," so I guess I would want to see a reason for ignoring the strong verifiability component of this AfD beyond, (and forgive me if I over-simplify your position for convenience's sake) "I think the original research it would require to keep this article relevant and up to standard is worth it because I like the concept and think we might be able to pull this off."  I like the concept also, and it would be nice if we could find some verifiable data to support the connections - but none are provided.  It would be good to include something about L&O using real cases as foundations for its episodes (if that's not already in the main L&O entry) but the issue here is not about the basic tendency of the program; it's about the connections between specific cases and specific episodes.  That's not just a satellite issue, it's the very premise of the articles nominated for deletion.  If you think that time can mend all wounds, including this particular little breach of policy, we could userfy it to the creator's space until he manages to find a source or 30.  The encyclopedia won't suffer for it's absence until that time, if it ever comes.    ◄    Zahakiel    ►   05:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we'll see what happens. Here's hoping my args are convincing enough. =^^= -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to notion of "Ignore all rules" - Generally speaking, the policy of "Ignore all rules" is in place for situations where the letter of the law prevents us from carrying out the intent of the law. (This isn't a hard-and-fast standard, but it's a good rule of thumb.) However, in this instance, the idea of "ignoring all rules" is not being raised because Wikipedia rules prevent us from improving Wikipedia. Rather, what is being suggested is that we have an idea in these articles that people like and that some see as being workable, and therefore we should ignore any questions of verifiability or original research. Here's what I say: the very nature of these articles is inherently original research. The contributors to these articles will have no choice but to speculate on possible connections between episodes and real-life cases. Sometimes, those connections will seem painfully obvious, but will still not be verifiable by reliable sources, as we can't be sure which real-life cases the writers intended to mimic, if any. As such, there is simply no way to keep or maintain these articles without engaging in original research. The content of these articles is inherently 100% speculation (unless of course, the exact intent of the L&O writers can be verified). It was not the intent of Wikipedia to be the publisher of such speculation. So, "Ignore all rules" does not apply here because these articles inherently violate the first of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, is not a publisher of original thought. Speculation, by definition, is original thought. --Hnsampat 06:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 09:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all There seem to be no sources where the writers explicitly say that "episode X was based on case Y", so the article fails WP:NOR. Since that connection constitutes the very essence of the article it follows that the article should be deleted. Pax:Vobiscum 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference scour reviews in newspapers, I already found a few. Sometimes the wording is "similar to the case of ..." or other wording. The problem seems to me is that the articles in newspapers don't name the episode just date it. Its just "this weeks episode ..." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Several problems with this. First, no way we can find a newspaper review for every single episode of all of these episodes. Furthermore, newspapers often disagree on what incident an episode is based off of. Finally, the newspapers are, in the end, doing exactly what we're doing, which is speculating. However, Wikipedia is a publisher of fact, not speculation. The newspapers are thus unreliable sources. The only way we can know for a fact what the plot inspirations are for these episodes is if the writers themselves say so (and they're not talking, as far as I know). No way that we can keep these articles without either speculating ourselves (i.e. original research) or citing someone else's speculation (i.e. citing an unreliable source). --Hnsampat 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the program at its end says something to the effect that "Any Similarity to Persons Living or Dead Is Purely Coincidental" unless someone can find a RS to contradict the show's own position, this is OR and speculation. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an interesting article, and probably mostly correct (Law & Order's own advertising makes it clear that its plots are "Ripped from the headlines.") Unfortunately, it is still original research, and as such, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. There may be another fan site or fan Wiki that would take it instead. *** Crotalus *** 23:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking over it, I can think of two entries that are verifiable: Indifference actually has a disclaimer during airing that explains that while it's based on the Steinberg case, there are various differences from the real case. And Gary Condit's wife publically threatened to sue NBC over the plot to Missing, which was based on the Chandra Levy case, since the TV show implied that the politician's wife was the real killer. But two entries alone aren't enough. Are there any others? *** Crotalus *** 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Crotalus is correct that L&O claims to be "ripped from the headlines." However, Carlossuarez46 is also correct that, during the closing credits, L&O includes a disclaimer that "This story is fictional. Any resemblence to actual persons or events is unintentional." Weird... --Hnsampat 23:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, just about every TV show and movie does that - sort of a CYA thing. I think that the only ones that don't do this are reality shows, game shows, (auto)biographical shows, and the like - for obvious reasons.  Besides, if they're basing their stories on the crimes, they are also - as is demonstrated in the article - changing the story just enough where it doesn't quite match with actual events.  Case in point, the Kevorkian bit as discussed above. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clean up, and reference -- Crotalus points out that some of these connections between L&O episodes and real-life cases actually can be verified and sourced. Therefore, I think we should add sources (and more information) for these particular examples now, while getting rid of the other examples that are pure speculation and/or original research. In other words, try to fix the pages before trashing them. If it turns out that we really don't have enough verifiable information in these three articles to warrant even a single article on plot inspirations, then we can delete the page, or Merge the information into the appropriate episode-specific pages. Any important and verifiable examples of "Law & Order / Real Life" connections should be mentioned on the episode pages, anyway... just make sure that no good information is lost. --Wikivader 03:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment -- There's an episode on USA right now that's so obviously based on Anna Nicole Smith's death... it's a shame we can't just use common sense as a reference. Still, as obvious as it might be, we probably don't need a list page for this, now that I think about it. Unless someone finds a lot of sources, I suggest we put this stuff on episode-specific articles, where appropriate. --Wikivader 03:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here is a FOX News article that specifically mentions the Anna Nicole Smith connection in that CI episode. *** Crotalus *** 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - I agree with Wikivader in that we should delete this article and perhaps move any verifiable information into appropriate episode-specific pages (although the big problem with this will be verifying the information without resorting to speculation). I think it's clear to even the casual viewer of L&O that, while the episodes are "ripped from the headlines," the overwhelming majority are not famous incidents. As a result, the vast majority of entries on these pages are speculative (i.e. original research). Still, there are a handful that could possibly be sourced. I don't think there are enough, though, to merit keeping any of these pages, which is why I am pushing for deletion. --Hnsampat 04:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances, I think that would be an acceptable solution. Preserve long enough for a merge, maybe. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 02:46, 18 May 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.