Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trench coats 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   keep. Onetwo three... 03:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Trench coats in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivial facts. The project is not served by an endless list of every character in any work of fiction who happens to wear a trenchcoat. PROD removed with the usual refrain of "it's notable and I just know there must be sources out there somewhere!" While there may indeed be, as the de-prodder suggests, sources regarding the "use of [an] iconic costume in significant media", such currently hypothetical sources would allow for a sourced section within Trench coat, not a list of every single fictional character who ever wore one. Otto4711 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with the trench coat article, and maybe downsize it a bit.--KrossTalk 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Trivial list cruft/clutter at best. IF there is any notable entries, put them in the main article only. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and look for sources. No attempt to find secondary sources seems to have been made by the nominator (or the author,for that matter), although many of the films discussed have extensive criticism available.  At first glance, it seems iconic, and the use of it in the notable works can certainly be sourced easily enough. DGG (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would really appreciate it if you would stop making assumptions about what I did or did not do regarding looking for sources. Otto4711 (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per WP:NOT. Quote from the article: "Some popular examples of characters wearing trench coats include Rorschach (comics), Doctor Occult, Green Hornet, the Sandman, and the Crimson Avenger, among others." Keep. I'm not against a mention of how trench coats are used in popular culture (preferably in the trench coat article) but an endless list of people wearing trench coats can be done with. If it was changed into how trench coats were used in pop culture, I'd be happy. a little   insignificant  19:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is nothing but an endless list of people wearing trench coats, so by your reasoning it can still be done with. Otto4711 (talk) 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete If some sources surface, I agree that the place to start is a section in the Trench coat article. A short list of examples there might be appropriate, but I don't see the point of a separate article at the moment. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The sad thing is, the trench coat has been a significant part of pop culture that influenced people like the Columbine High killers; this, of course, is your run of the mill ipc article, a list of sightings of an object in films and TV programs, in this case, people who wore coats that came down to their knees. Say, didn't I see the Vulcan high council wearing trench coats in the new Star Trek movie?  Of course, those might have been robes.... Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. Trenchcoats have influenced a large part of popular culture, an I feel this should be mentioned, but a list of people wearing trenchcoats is inappropriate (no pun intended). a little   insignificant  01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or maybe merge highly notable plot device. I might be able to find some refs on commentary. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Like many popcult articles or sections, it could do with a trimming, some reorganization, and better writing, but it's a resource we should include. If necessary, it could be Merged into the Trench coat article, that would be fine, but the material should be kept. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 09:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is fine. You could use the information to see when the sale of trench coats went up, based on being seen in a popular movie or television series.  I bought my black trenchcoat after watching Highlander the series for awhile.   D r e a m Focus  13:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then couldn't we include that in the article, i.e. "trenchcoats were made popular with the release of The Matrix in 1999", etc. a little   insignificant  13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly does a list of every fictional character who ever wore a trench coat in any fictional work ever allow people to determine anything about the sales of trench coats? That has to be about the most nonsensical assertion I've ever seen. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination seems to be arguing for a merge with the main Trenchcoat article. Be that as it may, the article has good scope to develop along the lines of the List of bowtie wearers.  I'll add a source, to demonstrate. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the nomination is not in any conceivable way, shape or form calling for the merger of a list of every fictional character who ever wore a trench into the trench coat article. Garbage that doesn't belong in a standalone article does not belong in the lead article either. Your source would serve nicely for a section of the lead article that discusses the history and/or impact of the coat. It does nothing to support the idea that a list of every fictional character who wears a particular garment serves the project. Sourced prose discussion of the impact of the trench = good. "Hey look, that guy's wearing a trench coat in a video game!" = rubbish. Otto4711 (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DDG. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 13:14, 15 May 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.