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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 21:40Z

Fight Club in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - a completely indiscriminate list of every time that a particular phrase or sentence from a book or movie was used in another movie or TV show is unnecessary. Something in the main Fight Club and Fight Club (film) articles along the lines of "the book/film has been referenced repeatedly in other popular films and television shows, especially in the form of a parody of the Rules of Fight Club" is more than sufficient. Otto4711 04:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I completely agree with Otto4711.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:NOT#IINFO list of passing mentions of cliched lines from the movie. Krimpet 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An indiscriminate collection of plot summaries and OR fan interpretations. -- IslaySolomon | talk 04:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the first rule of Wikipedia is that you do not talk about indiscriminate information like this. MER-C 04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NOT#IINFO per MER-C and Krimpet. Semperf 06:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.  Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  09:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, the fact MER-C couldn't resist refering to it shows just how very common and notably this has become. Widespread usage. Mathmo ^Talk 11:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, did anybody check the main articles first before listing/voting here? Although the nominator said "Something in the main Fight Club and Fight Club (film) articles along the lines of...", if you actually go to there they refer you to this very article that is up for AfD as the main article for that section. This is a very good idea because it drastically reduces the size of the main articles. AND at the same time avoids duplication between the articles of having each popular culture reference being on two articles it is instead only on one article. Thus the deletion of this article will cause more harm than any supposed good it might do. Mathmo ^Talk 11:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I did look at the main articles before nominating this and I agree that removing large trivia sections from the main book and film articles is a very good idea. However, removing a trivia section from one article so that it may be relocated into another article is not a good idea. Passing references to every book or film or TV show that mention another book or film or TV show are not in themselves so notable as to require separate articles. Otto4711 13:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a list concerning notable works, especially relevant in this case as Fight Club is about popular culture. Any original research/fan interpretation problems can be cleaned up. Per Mathmo, if it is deleted then cultural references will be unknowingly added to the main articles, which is counterproductive. The scope isn't so big that the list will become an unmaintainable mess. The nom's example "...especially in the form of a parody of the Rules of Fight Club" does sound like original research - can you back that claim up without the list? Would you argue that any "in popular culture" or "cultural references" article is an indiscriminate collection of information as well? If someone could please guide me to a policy that discriminates between passing references and notable references, then I will work on improving the article in that sense. Pomte 14:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, yes, I would argue that any similar article to this one is an indiscriminate collection of information. I would categorize any article that seeks to capture every single reference to a film or a book in every other medium as indiscriminate. Otto4711 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the most notable -- and verifiable -- examples into either the novel or (more likely) film article. A quick glance revealed far too many speculative and/or NN examples. I mean, just because a character in Dead Like Me sort of dresses like a character in the film doesn't mean the film had any impact at all on that costuming decision; it's the same as suggesting that someone wearing a tuxedo in a film is doing so because of James Bond. 23skidoo 15:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bordering on indiscriminate, I'd like to see it pared down and possibly merged, but the fact is Fight Club has had a huge effect on pop culture for over 10 years now. When a movie does that, it is notable. This cannot be done away with without some merging, because the Fight Club article relies on this as a sub right now, so note to closer if this article is deleted, please find some way to notify those upkeeping the Fight Club article and give them a way to fix that section. —siroχo 16:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wizard of Oz has been a cultural influence for almost 70 years, including amassing a significant body of scholarship amongst film historians, yet that article manages to limit itself to a few references. Otto4711 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparison is not a reason for a decision, not every article in Wikipedia has been "finished", let a lone created. If there were a long list of references to The Wizard of Oz, I'd probably vote exactly the same way, perhaps even allowing for a longer list considering the 7 decades it has influence pop culture. —siroχo 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not the sole basis for a decision, certainly, but when one makes the argument that a film's ten year history of cultural influence is justification for an article then it's reasonable to point out other examples of far more influential films who handle the issue differently. Moreover, I would argue that the article in question is not a documentation of the "cultural influence" of Fight Club. It's mostly a collection of one-liners from a variety of sources bunged together with things that likely have nothing to do with Fight Club at all (the aforementioned similar clothes item). Otto4711 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as explained above by Krimpet and others. The policy says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a trivia manual. A basic problem with this level of trivia is that editors can't possibly verify it. Whether a work alludes to another work is often a matter of interpretation, and editors' efforts to suppy their own opinions are essentially WP:OR. Can we manage this information reliably? --Shirahadasha 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable, split off content warranted. Everyking 07:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Fight Club is very influent in the modern culture, worldwide. I even think that the article should be expanded with more generic information, I mean, this article is like a trivia article, but need information of how Fight Club has influenced nowadays: philosophy, cult, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AVeRY! (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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.