Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to The Prisoner in popular culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Sr13 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References to The Prisoner in popular culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is just a list of loosely associated terms, it fails WP:NOT by design. Jay32183 02:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is pure trivia.  Wikipedia is not the place to document every time anyone mentions anything in a tv show/movie/book Corpx 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- unsourced laundry list of trivia. --Haemo 02:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Fails WP:TRIVIA horribly. Also, how many times must I say you can't have articles about references to contemporary movies and television shows in popular culture, because they themselves are popular culture! I don't care if it's from the 60's, it was popular culture then and it's popular culture now. Calgary 02:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced trivia. Oysterguitarist 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I recognize that The Prisoner, like The Honeymooners, has a loyal following, which is great, but in this case it's an obsession. The author seems to find reminders of a favorite show everywhere, seeing Number Six where others do not.  Prisoner fans, print out the list... by hook or by crook, it's going to be deleted.  Mandsford 03:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you the new Number Two? Is the WP:CABAL behind The Village? Clarityfiend 17:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * jk Delete as fancruft. Clarityfiend 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I am a fan of The Prisoner as well, but this list is filled with illusions of references in places they don't exist. Yes, there are references to The Prisoner. However, what legit ones are there are all unsourced. I could supply sources to those in particuliar, but that still doesn't make the article salvagable. Turlo Lomon 09:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete These "articles" (scrappy unedited research notes in reality) are always bad, with a built in tendency to get worse over time. Hawkestone 13:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - interesting in it's own way, but not what Wikipedia is for. WegianWarrior 14:01, 12 July 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.