Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Futurama products (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  20:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Futurama products and Slurm
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previously nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/List of Futurama products, where it was correctly stated that "an actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode" but ignored that secondary sources are still needed to establish notability. All of the products listed are referenced to episodes of the show; there are no secondary sources provided, and Verifiability states that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I'm also including Slurm, which is in the same state and provides no reliable secondary sources. 17Drew 00:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and also because it is a bit too trivial and fan-crufty for Wikipedia.--Danaman5 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Thats why they aren't individual articles, they are a list. Your using article space criteria against a list. As for slurm, see Slurn in Google News --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you under the impression that lists are policies or essays? They're a kind of article; that's why they're in the article namespace and not in the non-existant list namespace.  None of the products has significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, and neither does the topic of products in Futurama.  The list also isn't an important subtopic of another article, unlike for example, lists of episodes.  The Google News search doesn't turn up anything useful for the Slurm article.  In the first five pages of results, there are three passing mentions of the product, and one article has a brief plot summary involving Slurm.  It's all primary information, nothing to assert real world notability.  17Drew 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Futurama products" does not meet WP:N or WP:FICT. Therefore, this is a list of non-notable things that fit a definition of a non-notable concept. Jay32183 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Slurm to Fry and the Slurm Factory. Jay32183 23:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I was considering taking the first AfD to Deletion Review because the closer never seemed to take into account the keep votes never addressed that there were no secondary sources about any of these products, but this will do. None of these products have any coverage in reliable sources or establish real-world notability aside from being one-off or recurring gags on the show. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I love Futurama, but really... SolidPlaid 02:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft, listcruft. Keb25 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If Slurm is also nominated for deletion (and it is tagged as such) shouldn't it also be listed at the top of the page? I notice some of the comments seem to only be addressing the list, not the article and the list. Stardust8212 12:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete List of Futurama products. An unnecessary list trying to capture every one-off jokey reference to any fake company. Merge and redirect Slurm to the episode article. Otto4711 18:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, alphabeticaly organized list concerning a notable animated show with seventeen references. Some of these items also appear in the video game and other Futurama media and so have recognizability even beyond just the TV show.  Plus, the previous discussion (a keep) was only in July.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change and the last AFD had pretty light participation. The notability of the TV show does not automatically extend to every one-liner or image from it. Otto4711 21:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Slurm into Fry and the Slurm Factory. While this product is pretty important in the Futurama fan world, not sure there's much more to say other than what would be plot-summary-ish. Not sure what could be found for independent notability—I do see toys, lunchboxes, T-shirts, etc of it, supporting cultural notability, but having trouble finding actual WP:RS writing about Slurm itself or its logo'ed real-world products as a cultural or popular icon. DMacks 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both per Norton and Roi. Mandsford 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete both or merge/redirect selected information as examples and/or to their respective episode articles. Without real-world information, there is no justification for being this detailed about what happened in the plot. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if I have contributed to the page. This sort of thing should really be on a fan site, not in an encyclopedia.CarlFink 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Slurm into List of Futurama products and Keep the list as a compromise solution. --Eastlaw 03:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There needs to be a compelling reason to include material that has no real-world notability and frankly there is nothing in this list that suggests that is the case. Delete primarily on grounds of notability; lack of proper sources is a secondary, although also legitimate, concern. Eusebeus 13:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No secondary sources or demonstration of notability outside the fictional world of Futurama. — Brian ( talk ) 21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly legal list IAW WP:SAL. Put a refrence tag on it since it needs references, and that takes care of the reason for nomination to AFD and all valid complaints about the article. Viperix 19:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the lack of references; it's the lack of secondary sources (see WP:V). 17Drew 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, the problem isn't that sources aren't listed, it's that sources aren't available. This isn't a problem that can be solved by putting effort into it. Jay32183 21:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, now that editors have had an opportunity to find reliable secondaries and have apparently failed. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect Slurm to Fry and the Slurm Factory, Delete the list. Both per no secondary sources. shoy  19:25, 22 September 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.