Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three's Company 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 delete. After examining each comment, I've determined that the arguments in favor of deletion bear more weight than those in favor of retaining the article. As a result, there is consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three's Company in popular culture

fancruft and trivia Aurush kazemini^talk 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic and mostly just a collection of useless information. What this amounts to is meta-trivia where one TV show makes reference to another TV show. Totally useless and the reason Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously as a project.George Pelltier (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly appropriate. The references from one show to another are what constitute popular culture. If both the references and what's being referred to are notable, that's sufficient justification. DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. if they're so notable, they can go in the Three's Company article, what exists now is a list of miscellaneous facts ("trivia"). Per the Wikipedia guidelines on trivia, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list. As articles grow, however, these lists may become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." Aurush kazemini^talk 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be merged into the main Three's Company article. There is absolutely no need for a stand alone article. Alternatively, I jokingly propose we start several new articles: Three's Company in unpopular culture, Three's Company, a homoerotic analysis, and Three's Company, a defense of the polyamorous lifestyle disguised as a sitcom. --Nik (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Other stuff shouldn't exist" really isn't much of a better argument than "other stuff exists", now is it? DHowell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's enough usage of this term in cultural references, psychology and sociology topics that it warrants a separate page.—RJH (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – large heading split from main article per WP:SPLIT. Merge is possible as the main article would still be around 30 kilobytes. feydey (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate subtopic of an extremely notable television show. This is not a "trivia section", it is in fact a list of cultural references and allusions in "a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation", as the guidelines suggest we do. DHowell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an assemblage of the most worthless trivia, such as:

"At the beginning of the U2 song "Vertigo", Bono exclaims "unos, dos, tres, catorce" which translates to "some, two, three, fourteen", This Spanish language counting, or miscounting, is possibly derived from the Three's Company episode "Doctor in the House"^[1]"

There may be three or four items worth moving to the article on Three's Company. Drawn Some (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not there anymore; thanks for pointing it out. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing but trivial WP:OR with little to no bearing on the Three's Company article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Three's Company - Glorified trivia section. Useful info should be merged. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notable and verifiable bits like coverage in humor magazines. A merge would be fine too, but should be discussed on appropriate article talk pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The verifiable information can be sent to Three's Company, while the rest can be junked. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR and trivia. I doubt that a list of every time a mid-range American sitcom has been mentioned in any other media is useful to anyone apart from the most rabid of fans. No objection to userification if someone for some reason wants to move this content offsite. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A list of trivia does not an encyclopedic article make. Some of the relevant material can be moved to Three's Company but passing trivial mentions of the show don't belong here in any article. None of this iinformation has been shown to be encyclopedic through discussion in reliable sources so the original research claim also appears to be valid. Them From Space 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a combination of original research, unreliably sourced, or simply not sourced at all. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic to see how a popular series influences many other notable series over time. There is enough information to warrant its own article, no sense erasing the majority of it to have just a token amount put in the main article, knowing someone would call that trivia and erase it entirely within the next month anyway. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a listing of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was a mathematical way to tally the impact of TV on future TV, this would have one of the highest ratings. It is surprisingly well referenced but could be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia listing.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (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.

^ WGN Radio producer Andy Hermann's Bono/Ritter Catorce Theory (scroll down to the second to last audio clip on page)

[1] WGN Radio producer Andy Hermann's Bono/Ritter Catorce Theory (scroll down to the second to last audio clip on page)

[1]