Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional beverages


 * 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, ignoring the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS agruements. Jaranda wat's sup 01:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional beverages

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Thoroughly indiscriminate collection of unsourced, unverified information that provides absolutely no context for any of its entries' importance to their points of origin with the exception of links to those very rare fictional beverages that are notable enough in themselves to have articles. We do not need a list of every single fake drink from every single Letterman Top Ten List, Simpsons episode, one-time sight gag or passing background billboard ad from every random TV show, magazine, book or movie. Otto4711 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per previous afd here and the fact that it IS sourced. Nearly every one of these links to the fiction that inspired it. Nardman1 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was for a list of fictional mixed drinks, not for this list. Links to the Wikipedia articles for the things these drinks came from are not reliable third-party sources for the things themselves. As just one of dozens of examples, can you tell me where in the Late Night with David Letterman article it references "McBourbon" and explains the notability of it? Otto4711 22:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Look again, the previous afd was for a substantial amount of the material in this list. And I actually agree with you on the David Letterman ones. If they're your main objection to the article by all means excise them. Nardman1 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My main objections to this list are laid out in the nomination. Otto4711 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It may not be necessary, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia. There are lots of unnecessary articles on wikipedia. Quadparty 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Useless popular culture listcruft. Does not include ambrosia or soma or anything culturally or historically notable. Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup Could probably use some division; as Pavel said, not including soma or ambrosia in this kind of list in inexcusable. JuJube 23:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Category:Fictional beverages Already covers any fictional beverages that may be notable, and everything else is just listcruft. Also impossible to be complete.--SeizureDog 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It could use some cleaning, but it is verifiable from the fiction referenced (in most cases). It is in the gray area between secondary and primary research, but it does no harm and could be valuable when linked-to from other articles.  This does not violate the spirit of WP and could be valuable to some researchers.  --Kevin Murray 01:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How exactly would it be valuable to a researcher that, to pick one semi-random example, in one unidentified episode of the show Home Movies there was something called "Burpsi-Cola"? What could our hypothetical researcher possibly be studying that would make that valuable knowledge? There is no way to know from the article if this cola played any significant role in the episode, hell, there isn't even any way to know if it came in a can or a bottle or who drank it or if someone drank it or poured it over their head. Otto4711 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I said that it could use some cleaning. My selection stands at face value; I don't want to debate your non sequitur at every AfD; it gets tiresome. If you don't want people to express their opinions don't make marginal AfD nominations. --Kevin Murray 05:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly, I disagree that this article is anything even approaching marginal. If you don't care to defend your opinion (and you might want to learn what "non sequitur" actually means) then maybe you shouldn't express one. But if you do and I disagree with it, I have no intention of not challenging it. Otto4711 06:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Won't feed the Trolls --Kevin Murray 16:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, you can't defend your opinion so you resort to name-calling. Otto4711 16:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kevin Murray. Mathmo Talk 06:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable topic, plus a number of entries have Wikipedia articles. Could perhaps do with a more detailed introduction, though. 23skidoo 14:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Trivia. Recury 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate listcruft. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis...not solely a summary of that work's plot. This is a collection of plot summaries revolving around objects of little fictional significance, let alone real-world significance. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  10:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information.  -- Alan McBeth 15:12, 14 February 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.