Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional portrayals of the NYPD

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. W.marsh 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional portrayals of the NYPD

Fictional portrayals of the NYPD (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

The scope of this article is far too broad to be useful or encyclopedic. Seeking to list every film, TV show, music video, or computer game that has ever shown an NYPD officer is going to result in a 500K-article of dubious value. Why is such an article interesting or important?

The problem is that you can include anything from Law & Order, which is entirely about the NYPD, to a film about something else altogether in which you catch an NYPD in one frame. There's no way in this list to distinguish media ABOUT the NYPD from those that simple mention it. In short, this article is not encyclopedic. Dylan 17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete per the excellent reasons laid out by the nominator. Otto4711 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note though that if properly sourced the section on the Film/TV unit would make a fine start to an article. Otto4711 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. De-listify and turn into an actual article (you know, with words and prose and sources and other fun stuff). The section on the NYPD Movie/TV Unit seems to be a decent (and interesting) start. --- RockMFR 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As with any wikiarticle, it should be limited to notable subject matter. The article should include movies, tv series, books and video games that are primarily about the NYPD. Nobody wants every episode of Kojack listed here. - Mytwocents 17:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Exactly, but who's going to be the arbiter of what qualifies as "notable material" -- i.e. material that portrays the NYPD "enough" to be included? This leads into very contentious territory. Dylan 17:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Unworkable non-encyclopedic list; even if the answer to the nominator's question is that the article is "interesting" and "important", those are not criteria to keep. Merge anything useful in the "NYPD Movie/TV Unit" subsection into the NYPD article. Agent 86 18:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep provided article is referenced and restricted The article should clearly be limited to listing links to Wiki articles which notably mention the NYPD in a fictional context. Merely appearing in one frame, as the nominator suggests, would be insufficient for inclusion in this type of list. It has to be a notable, verifiable appearance mentioned in the article. In addition, the article is currently poorly referenced. So my keep vote is conditional on the article providing better references and making clear that it is restricted to article which notably, verifiably include a fictional version of the NYPD. Dugwiki 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How do you propose adhering to our Wikipedia:No original research policy? How is this synthesis of data, a collection of all of these disprate appearances in disconnected works of fiction under one umbrella, not a novel one? Uncle G 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep as per Dugwiki. WP:NOR need not be violated, as information can be taken from the sources given in individual movie articles (or the movie itself--movies are also published sources, even if their scope is limited to themselves). Given how often the NYPD is portrayed (in a notable context) in fiction, the topic deserves a separate article. I do agree, however, that the article needs serious cleanup. Black Falcon 20:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That doesn't answer the question. That individual pieces of information can be sourced does not by itself support the assertion that their synthesis is not a novel one. Again: How is this synthesis of data not a novel one? Uncle G 00:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • As I read it, WP:OR clearly and repeatedly rules against synthesis and interpretation to advance a position. This is what sets apart normal Wikipedia writing (which, short of a copyvio, always involves unique synthesis and analysis of available information) - it's research, but not original research. This article clearly has no barrow to push, and I would disagree that WP:OR is violated here. --Canley 03:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • If it's just a list (as it currently is), there is not much (or any) synthesis really required. However, if it's to be made into a full article, some synthesis will be required, but it need not be particularly novel. For instance, the "History" section of any article about a country, city, etc. is somewhat synthesized. However, for the most part, it is only stylistic synthesis so as not to plagiarize from original sources. I'm not sure what kind of synthesis you have in mind. Black Falcon 03:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to NYPD; I recognise this article is already long, but most famous law-enforcement agencies have a section in their article concerning fictional appearances. Walton monarchist89 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe make it a section titled "The NYPD in popular culture"? It is pretty prevalent, and the portrayals themselves are interestingly varied, as are the NYPD's reaction to them. For example, the game True Crime: New York City depicts a fictional undercover NYPD officer. The game comes with a small card that states (more or less) "The content of this game in no way reflects the actions, policies, or views of the New York City Police Department." It's fairly interesting that they felt the need to distance themselves this way from the game (On the other hand, True Crime: Streets of LA, which depicted the LAPD, did not come with such a disclaimer). It's stuff like that that is valid enough to discuss in a section of the main article, I think. ♠PMC♠ 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

True Crime: Streets of LA does not centre on the LAPD, it uses a totally made up organization, the E.O.D.[1]. True Crime: New York centers on "the Police Department" of New York[2], which is not emphatically the NYPD but close. I dont think this kind of thing is sufficient for inclusion in this article however. Bwithh 23:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge to NYPD the section on the NYPD Movie/TV Unit. This would be just like any other "In popular culture" article, except the scope is too big and practically I doubt all the listed works will have their fictional portrayals described and sourced. Pomte 23:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Probably needs a move to a more "major representations in popular culture" kind of title. I think this kind of list article is reasonable enough, though like most lists of this kind, its prone to being an inane trivia magnet that needs regular cleanup and rigorous patrol of weeding out of trivial references and speculationI don't think there are that many substantial NYPD shows etc. to make this page unwieldy Bwithh 23:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Firstly, I don't think the list will be anywhere near as large and unwieldy as the nominator speculates - if so, why isn't it already? Because people have stuck to firm portrayals such as police procedural TV shows and crime movies, not single appearances of NYPD officers in episodes of Seinfeld or Friends. Regarding the notability of sources, if they're kept to those notable enough for a Wikipedia article (by which I don't mean "inclusion is an indicator of notability", but just that redlinks should be pruned regularly). --Canley 02:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if de-listified Frankly, I don't think that the article in it's current form is appropriate as an encyclopedia article. If re-worked to an analysis of how the NYPD has been represented in fiction, with well-cited references, then this article could have a fighting chance. Otherwise, I vote for a strong delete. Aervanath 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, I have moved the movie/tv unit section into the NYPD article where it belongs. If this article is reworked, then a discussion of how the movie/tv unit influences the nypd's portrayal in fiction would be appropriate, rather than a simple description of what the unit's job is. Aervanath 05:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I can think of plenty of reasons why someone might be interested in fictional depictions of the NYPD and the article itself is easily verifiable. Since the NYPD is easily notable on its own, and this article is too long to merge, I think it can have its own article. Tarinth 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What are some of those reasons? Are any of them reasons beyond WP:USEFUL? Agent 86 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Interesting that you mention WP:USEFUL... looking at your previous argument (and the nomination), can I ask if you've read the bit in that very same essay which includes "Delete per nom" and "unencyclopedic" as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? --Canley 14:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, which is why I went beyond the shorthand and explained my position, unless you'd like for me to retype everything the nom said and then add in my comment. That does not change the fact that I still don't know what the "plenty of reasons" referred to are. Agent 86 03:20, 29 January 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.