Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to The Prisoner 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 of the debate was no consensus. Petros471 19:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

References to The Prisoner in popular culture
From my proposed deletion, which was removed: "This was split off from The Prisoner because the trivia was getting longer than the main article. While I sympathize with editors overwhelmed with well-meaning but worthless contributions, I don't think this makes an encyclopedia article, and much of it is wishful speculation." Erik the Rude 17:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * merge Delete per wikipedia is WP:NOT a number! it is a free encyclopedia! Ydam 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No merge because there was a reason why it was split off in the first place. It should be shortened. There is amble verifiable evidence of The Prisoner having a wide influence on pop culture, not the least of which is The Matrix. Heck, even the Simpsons has paid tribute to the show. Shorten by all means, but I think it's worthy of its own article. 23skidoo 18:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you forgot to mention that the reason it was split off is that this indiscriminate list of information would hurt The Prisoner's chances of becoming a featured article. If it doesn't belong in a featured article, I don't see how it belongs in its own stand-alone article.  While The Prisoner is worthy of an article, a list of every time it's been mentioned in a TV show or other media really isn't, in my opinion.  I don't think this information merits its own article.  It should have been kept in the main article and been trimmed down or simply deleted before the FA review.  Dumping the not-so-good portions of an article into the rest of Wikipedia just to make the main article look better is a bad idea.  What was wrong with just getting rid of it?  Good editing involves erasing and trimming, too. Erik the Rude 18:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There's waaaaaaaaay too much done on "trivial references in popular culture" or "appearances in popular media" sections in Wikipedia. The likes of Simpsons/Family Guy etc etc are the worst offenders (remember these are shows which have one of their main roles is to make references to other media/pop culture). Much or most of such sections/lists are entirely banal fancruft to the point of non-notability (true trivia). Seeing yet another screenshot of a reference made to a person in a Simpsons episode in a Wikipedia article about that person is in my all-time top ten worst Wikipedia experiences Bwithh 23:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Long lists of every single reference to a show are effectively a form of fancruft. Artw 19:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per 23skidoo. This is a good article demonstrating the Prisoner's impact on popular culture. Alternatively, could be merged back to the Prisoner, which is where this should be discussed (i.e. not on AfD). --JJay 19:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One: This is not a good article, and I seriously doubt that many people would agree with you that it is a good article.
 * Two: The Prisoner's impact on popular culture should be discussed in the main Prisoner article, if at all.  It doesn't stand alone.
 * Three: I don't see the problem with discussing a merge here, as it's done all the time.  However, the editors of The Prisoner obviously don't want it to be merged.
 * It's too bad there's not a Triviapedia where all this stuff can go, but there's not, so it needs to be deleted. Erik the Rude 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You made all these points in your original nom when you used the word "worthless". You expanded on your thinking in your comment to 23skidoo above. There is no need to repeat your excessively negative opinion of the article. I would suggest you refrain from badgering everyone who disagrees with you. --JJay 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion, isn't it? Well, I'm discussing my views.  Quit trying to silence me and tell me how to speak, JJay. Erik the Rude 21:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am neither trying to "silence" you, nor telling you "how to speak". As indicated, though, I find the term "worthless" needlessly agressive. I generally prefer to assume that the users who contributed the material found some worth in their contribution. To me that is part of WP:AGF. I also found some of the material here interesting. I think it sheds some light on the Prisoner phenomenon. On these points we disagree, although this was probably clear with my initial comment (so I apologize for endlessly discussing my views) --JJay 03:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've noticed you make frequent emotional objections to the words people use, and you use this as a tactic to get the debate off-topic. It was foolish of me to fall for this trick of yours, but you won't fool me again, so don't try it. Erik the Rude 07:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Erik, it's your behavior here that is inappropriate. JJay is being more respectful to you than you deserve with such discussion-poisoners as "you use this as a tactic to get the debate off-topic" and "this trick of yours". -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Fancruft/listcruft... Also appears to have a significant amount of inaccurate/dubious original research. The most significant and verifiable pieces should be merged with the main Prisoner article if they are not already there.~ Bwithh
 * Keep I see nothing wrong with it. Dylan 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge Most of this is just junk OR (what the hell is this: "The Clash B-side "The Prisoner" may be a reference to the show although the lyrics are oblique and do not seem to refer to it in any direct way"). Merge the noteworthy items and trash the rest. EVula 23:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup (trim out "may or may not be" references, etc.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete bone's connected to the not encyclopedic bone . . . I'd rather see this dealt with in the actual Prisoner article. However, rather than just a list of all references, summarize common references and give a couple of representative examples. ScottW 01:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WP:NOT and 23skidoo, the subject has had a legitimately notable impact on pop culture and we should document that fact. Silensor 03:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but cleanup. bbx 04:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I would like to see a more encyclopedic article, possibly with the title Influence of The Prisoner on popular culture, with more exposition on why it is influential, rather than listing every reference to it ever. So I think that this article is a start, but needs improvement.  --Joelmills 04:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge probably should be cleaned-up to only include notable refernces, too. Other shows have their references on their main page.  No reason to split it off here.
 * Keep but it needs a lot of tidying to make it encyclopedic. Richard W.M. Jones 17:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the notable references in this so-called article with the main article. While a lot of these references are interesting, most of them are just ridiculous.  The Battlestar Galactica entry is not a reference but a mere coincidence, while the Matrix entry is mostly speculation into the common symbology between the two works.  But most of all, a lot of these references are not actually references, but just vague and brief homages.  We should remove all of the speculation, coincidences and homages, keeping all the direct references, and merge the remaining references with the main article. Brash 19:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The Battlestar Galactica entry is not a reference but a mere coincidence -- really? According to Number Six (Battlestar Galactica), Battlestar Galactica: The Official Companion says it's intentional.  What's your source for declaring it a mere coincidence? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * My source was mere cynicism and the fact that the entry was not cited. Actually, by sheer coincidence I was reading that huge 2003 interview with Ron Moore today, and I noticed that he said the following: "She's named Number 6 because at that point I was discovering, for the first time, The Prisoner on DVD – which I had never seen. And I was just in love with The Prisoner, so I decided to name her Number 6."  So you're right.  But this reveals an even bigger problem with this list: none of the entries on this page are cited, and nothing is immediately verifiable.  That's not very encyclopedic.  Brash 04:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to clean the article up, not to delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting merging, not deleting. Unless you think you can clean up and flesh out fourty five plus references and make them strong enclyclopedic entries, I think we need to clean up what we have, cut out what is not important or not relevant, and then merge with the original article.  Brash 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bwithh Deleuze 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete; if there's anything in the article that's of genuine significance and isn't in the main article, then it can be merged. I agree completely with the nominator, Bwithh, et al. &mdash; Wikipedia is submerging under the weight of trivial fancruft.  We're surely not trying to include everything that can be said about everything, nor to reproduce every Internet fansite; we're supposed to be writing an encyclop&aelig;dia. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Riddled with original research and the ability of the article to source its claims with constructive references is questionable to say the least.--Auger Martel 12:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could someone please explain to me why we need a large entry in Wikipedia concerning when and how The Prisoner has been mentioned in other television shows and other media? I haven't seen a single reasonable argument to keep this stuff.  Is every instance of a Wikipedia-worthy subject being mentioned on TV automatically worth recording for posterity?  To me, this level of obsessive interest in trivia is harmful and counterproductive to the Wikipedia project. Erik the Rude 07:42, 18 June 2006 (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.