Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand blunder


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Brand blunder

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA, This article consists of nothing but an indiscriminate list of irrelevant trivia rather than what an article or should be, most of these are unsourced regardless if it is well known or not. Donnie Park (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. This is essentially a subsection of Snopes.com, referenced to and aparrently sourced from Snopes.com with a neologism for a title added for good measure. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article's name can be changed to a more usual term (see WP:MOVE). It's not a reason to delete. – George Serdechny 08:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you renamed the page (and changed the lead), you would still have Snopes-lite with all the problems the nominator listed. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, see A short course in international marketing blunders or Brand failures, for example. The article just needs improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, like just I said they are well known, but then aren't they better off being consolidated into the foreign branding article rather than on this list, all this list is odd various trivia dumped in to Be compiled into this list. Like I said, this list is noting but riddled with trivia that really belonged elsewhere, but then, that list is no better either as it is a list of listcrufty trivias. Donnie Park (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep CW is dead-on, his cites demonstrate that the topic is notable. This is certainly a list, and work will be required to turn it into a well-crafted list, but that's nothing that a little elbow-grease can't manage. With regard to Donnie Park's argument, first, "foreign branding" and "branding snafus" (by any name) are different topics, I don't see the sense in such a merge. (I do think a rename is warranted, I'm at a loss for a terrific name, but List of Notable Branding Failures is, if not a decent title, in the direction of a decent title from here.) --joe deckertalk to me 23:37, 25 April 2011 (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.