Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional beverages (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional beverages
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Clear-cut re-creation of a deleted article that does nothing to address the issues that led to its initial deletion, although speedy deletion was declined by admin who did not bother to look into the situation at all. There has been nothing done to address the reasons the list was initially deleted, which were that this is an "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 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as CSD G4; if that's apparently not appropriate, delete since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, with a large helping of "source" and "trim" per List of fictional swords and the ensuing discussion. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Item is not G4-eligible. Recreation overlaps several of the definitions, but 1) appears to have been a completely new list, and 2) has been around, un-G4'ed since early 2008 in which time many edits have been made by a variety of editors. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as much too broad; also contains items too trivial (e.g. the SNL drinks). The "Fictional beverages that also existed" part is the only salvageable section. JJL (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and salvage. It is beyond question that there are some notable fictional beverages, particularly those that are intrinsic to the plot of the story being told. If we trim away the minor mentions and require independent sourcing of the importance of those that remain, we will have an article worth keeping. BD2412  T 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If there are independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of a particular fictional drink, then write an article about it and put it in Category:Fictional beverages. Otto4711 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about world colliding. As consensus is clear here, the list AND the category can co-exist together in synergistic fashion, per WP:CLN. There appears to be no reason to delete the list in favor of a category, or vice versa. The two will allow readers to navigate through these fictional beverages either through the list or the category. Alansohn (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines. WP:CLN in no way obviates WP:NOT and a collection of every beverage that exists within every fictional setting that lacks reliable sources that discuss the concept of fictional beverages is trivial garbage. No one is suggesting deleting the list in favor of the category, What is being suggested is that a list of every time someone mentions a non-existent beverage in any work of fiction ever is not encyclopedic and that we have a place for those interested in actual significant fictional beverages to find those that are actually notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk about someone who can't stop the personal attacks. I'm baffled as to how you can insist that "No one is suggesting deleting the list in favor of the category" when you are persistently pushing for deletion of this list and you just stated that "If there are independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of a particular fictional drink, then write an article about it and put it in Category:Fictional beverages". How do we manage to have five separate Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes when we also have Category:LGBT-related television episodes? How do we deal with the slippery slope problem of not including every television episode with a passing reference to homosexuality in those lists? Does everyone who has voted to keep suffer from the same problem of "having no grasp of basic understanding of WP policies and guidelines"? Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * talk about someone who insists on finding personal attacks where none exist. I am not advocating deleting the list in favor of the category. I am responding to those who claim that the existence of some fictional beverage warrants retaining a list of every fictional beverage. And as for the LGBT lists and category, there are actual books written about LGBT-related TV episodes. They are actually notable as attested to by reliable secondary sources, as opposed to the vast majority of the trivial drinks listed here, which have little or no importance to the fiction they're drawn from, let alone the real world. So that's how we deal with the "slippery slope", by relying on secondary sources and not "this one time in this one TV show there was this fake drink that never got mentioned again in the TV series or anywhere else." And yeah, if people vote to keep this list, they are fundamentally not understanding WP:NOT among other things. Otto4711 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Bizarro world of WP:CFD, your arguments might actually find receptive ears. Here, in the real world, we seem to have a firm grasp that reliable and verifiable sources carry the day in demonstrating notability. You may want to consider taking this to WP:DRV and convincing other editors that WP:NOT is being violated by this article and that everyone arguing for retention of this article is dead wrong in "fundamentally not understanding" your interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

*Delete, this is a collection of useless trivia about things that don't even actually exist, and it is not related to anything else, it is just a list for the sake of having a list. Not notable. --Susan118 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment On what basis did you decide this list was not notable? Are you aware that a number of these drinks (e.g., the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster appear in RS? Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But having a couple of notable items on a list does not make the list itself notable. Those items can be (and in your example is) included in the article about the TV show, film, book, etc. Using your argument, I can say a List of words that start with "T" is significant because Tree is notable. --Susan118 (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but the overarching theme of this article is not random and unrelated words, but examples of a common thing, that thing being a beverage that does not exist in the real world, but which is used in a work of fiction as a stand-in, perhaps even a parody, for that which exists in the real world. BD2412  T 01:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "examples of a common thing" is a Pandora's box in this context. List of fictional schools exists, but if we're down to beverages we could have fictional streets, fictional clothing companies, fictional bosses, etc. I don't see what's notable enough about "beverages" to justify this list of drinks from such widely varying media (Through the Looking Glass to SNL). JJL (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's how I feel about it, too, but I really don't feel strongly enough about it to waste any more energy on it. It's obviously going to be kept just because some of the items are semi-notable. Still do not see how that makes the list notable, but whatever. --Susan118 (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, in going back and looking at the latest version, I'm impressed by what bd2412 has done to improve this in such a short time. It no longer reads like a laundry list of every fake beverage, but is now well sourced and includes descriptions and/or explanations of significance for most of them. I bet if it had been done like this in the first place, it never would have been nominated for deletion. (As close as I'm going to get to saying Keep)--Susan118 (talk) 06:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep as it contains information that wouldn't be found elsewhere. a little   insignificant  17:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial listcruft, also: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What we are in the process of doing is making the list discriminating in its collection of information. BD2412  T 19:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Cogent discussion at this other Afd had that information merged to this article. Following, this earlier AfD noted that some of the information IS sourced. Calling in "indiscriminate" is mis-direction, as the article title tells the viewer exactly what the article contains. It is not indescriminate. Spreading this information out among dozens of other articles makes it difficult for a reader to then find unless they know specifically what they are looking for. The "context" is seen in the title. Calling it "listcruft" is a negative connotation that acts to denigrate the work of editors who have contributed. Since the nom's other concern is that the list is "unsourced and unverified" information, that concern would call for a tag for cleanup and sourcing... and AfD is not for cleanup. Keep it, tag it, discuss sourcing on its talk page, and let's move on to contributing to a paperless encyclopedia, rather than shrinking it. Article's are here more for the average reader... not for the editors.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It just needs to have more references added. The topic is notable since there is already articles in reliable media on the very same topic. JUst help add references as I am doing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, where might one find these "articles in reliable media on the very same topic"? I can't seem to locate any. Deor (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, each article has a section we call "references", and it lists the articles that were used to source the article. You can also use The Google and type in the phrase "fictional beverage". But I am sure you already know this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I Googled, but the only thing I found that treated "the very same topic"—that is, the topic of fictional beverages in general—was the one currently referenced in footnote 3 in the article. The FAQ for that site, however, says, "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own": It's as if they read WP:RS and decided to emphasize deliberately that their site isn't "reliable media." Deor (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are, however, books which discuss the use of fictional brands, and which address beverages in that context. I have now cited some. BD2412  T 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia's coverage of fiction must serve it's coverage of reality. Fictional works must be covered, but their contents need only be discussed to the extent necessary to understand the work and its place in human culture. Mintrick (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are working on making this article serve that function. BD2412  T 19:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mintrick's remark strikes me as a very debatable point of view couched in the emphatic declarative. I'm reminded of what Jimbo Wales had to say about "rampant deletionism". Keep per MichaelQSchmidt.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The hilarious fact is that, since people ignored the creation of articles about pure fiction, they've exploded well beyond anything approaching sanity. Jimbo was wrong. It's something that happens to mortals. Mintrick (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then userfy the content, add sources, and put the new article in its place if it's deleted. Mintrick (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should we do that when we can, relatively quickly, fix the content of the article with these same improvements? BD2412  T 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fix the article and I'll change my vote. You've got a full week. Mintrick (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep we cover the real world, yes. What else is there? Fiction is part of the real world, just as music  is,  or philosophy, or religion. They are covered to the extent necessary to show their significance, and the major background elements of a story are part of the significance. But the question here is not articles for the individual beverages, which i agree would be justified only in unusual cases, where they were central to the story or characterization, or otherwise of special importance. (I think there are only two such at the moment)  This is a combination article, with just the briefest description,  and such articles are the only hope for compromise.  Some of these may need a little weeding out, butt hat's an editing problem--I'm not really sure just where the line should be drawn, but that's for the talk page.   I'd organize it by type of work or of drink, not alphabetically, but that;s an editing matter also.  DGG (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure just where the line should be drawn... is an outstanding illustration of how this list is indiscriminate. Not knowing where the line should be drawn means no one will draw the line, which means that any time some editor sees a digital billboard whiz past in the latest video game, they'll run to add it to the list despite its being completely and utterly meaningless. Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I give our editors more credit than that. BD2412  T 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly so. Mintrick (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you, an editor, doubt the judgment of editors? BD2412  T 00:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Doubt" is the wrong word. Otto's assessment is accurate, and you are incorrect to doubt it. Pop culture lists grow, often with silly, unimportant, or even obviously repetitive details until obliterated. Mintrick (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That can happen to any article. The solution is to fix what's there. We can come to a consensus about what is a clearly notable and reliably sourced fictional beverage, and police the content of the article accordingly. Please feel free to take a chainsaw to any content that is not notable or unsourced. BD2412  T 01:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One It is not indiscriminate now, since it only includes those in notable works. Two Saying that there can be dispute over which items to include does not mea n that all items can or should be included. Saying the exact point to discriminate isn't clear is proof that the topic is discriminate, not that it isn't. The exact point above which things are significant is open to discussion on most articles, and not necessarily obvious. Saying if we can need to have a discussion, we should delete, is not building the encyclopedia, but destroying it. DGG (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not indiscriminate now, since it only includes those in notable works. This makes absolutely no sense. The notability of the fiction does not confer notability onto the fictional beverage. Where are the sources that, for instance, discuss "Black Pony Scotch" from Laura and establish that the scotch is notable? As for your second comment, honestly I find it too incoherent to formulate a response. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Pony Scotch is pivotal to the story. A bottle of this brand is found in the apartment of the title character (who is incorrectly thought to have been murdered), leading a detective to develop certain suspicions because she would not drink so cheap a brand. Is it less notable than Duff Beer, Buzz Beer, Romulan Ale, and the Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster? Clearly. The correct forum for determining whether it belongs in the article at all is a discussion on the article's talk page, where I have already proposed some criteria for inclusions which should satisfactorily clean up the article. BD2412  T 07:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pivotal to the story" does not equal "notable" The importance of a fictional element to the story does not establish the notability of the fictional element in the absence of reliable sources that are significantly about the element. This is a perfect illustration of the problem with these "List of every fictional foo" pseudo-articles; editors either cannot understand, or understand and choose to ignore for reasons of WP:ILIKEIT, the difference between in-universe importance and real-world notability. Thank you for such a perfect example. Otto4711 (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And thank you right back for such a perfect example of a discussion that should be taking place ON THE ARTICLE'S TALK PAGE! You raise that as a reason for deleting the article, and yet you make no effort to address the content of the article in the appropriate forum. I have proposed criteria at Talk:List of fictional beverages, and you are welcome to use all of your powers of argument and persuasion to limit inclusion to those things that you feel are truly notable. BD2412  T 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * SECTION BREAK Okay, BD2412, you need to calm down. We can link this discussion to the talk page if you'd like. a little   insignificant  17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just don't know how many different ways I can say that the appropriate way to resolve the objection that some items on the list are non-notable is to fix the article. I've made that point several times in this discussion, and yet other keep insisting that this is a reason for deletion without even attempting to resolve the issue by fixing the article itself. I've proposed criteria on the talk page. I would ask that anyone who seriously objects to the content of the article please engage in that discussion. Those who have made no attempt to fix the article can not credibly say that the article is unfixable. BD2412  T 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that too few of these fictional drinks are actually notable enough to be listed here. "Buzz Cola" and "Alaskan Polar Bear Heater"? These are one-time references with no real connection to a plotline. a little   insignificant  19:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-defined list backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. All prior issues of sourcing have been addressed. Alansohn (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Pretty well sourced now, and doesn't seem to be full of fluff. Cut out any non-notable beverages, but keep the list. Fences and windows (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we cut out all of the non-notable beverages, the list would be a duplicate of the contents of Category:Fictional beverages because 99% of the listed beverages are not notable. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What relevance does overlap have in requiring deletion of a list (or a category), when WP:CLN states that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." I performed a careful analysis of List of Presidents of the United States and Category:Presidents of the United States and they overlap nearly 100%, one of many categories with complete duplication in a list and category. Which one should we delete? Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The relevant policy here is Lists (stand-alone lists). The topic certainly falls into the range of broadness and narrowness, and there are even good examples given in the same vein, eg the list of fictional dogs.  I was the one who declined the speedy delete, viewing the large amount of time since the last AfD, the large number of edits by many people, the restoration of the previous history, and the different content, so it did not count as an identical recreation, and that a debate should be in order to establish whether to continue keeping the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As an indiscriminate collection of random information. There is no likelihood that a complete or near-complete list of fictional beverages could ever be compiled. It winds up being a few things that a few editors like. Maybe it would include, "Kaf-Pow" from NCIS and "Butterbeer,"from Harry Potter, but is unlikely to include the "Stim-brew" or "Skullbustium" from 1930's sci-fi spaceoperas. It is unlikely to ever hold more than 1/10 of 1 % of the eligible entries, and few of these have any sources other than the fictional work wherein they were mentioned.  A pointless and unencyclopedic exercise in recentism.Edison (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These objections can be dealt with by less extreme measures than deleting the article. We are currently in the process of trimming it to matters mentioned in reliable sources external to the media from which the fictional product comes. BD2412  T 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is contradictory, as you clearly understand the inclusion criteria (therefore it is not indiscriminatory!), and you then complain that it isn't perfect - so improve it! Add Stim-brew and Skullbustium, if you've got sources. Fences and windows (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be less recentist if it gave the date of the work, so readers could look for 1930's fictional drinks if they were so inclined. J Alan Smith (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. Each should have a description too. Fences and windows (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not indiscriminate, and there are definitely some notable examples Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notable examples should have articles, The fact that some fictional beverages have independent notability does not mean that a list of every beverage ever mentioned once in a TV show is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's timeline and train of thought. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  10:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, if it included every fictional beverage ever it would be indiscriminate but the criteria proposed on the talk page are enough to make it encylopedic. Unfortunately we'll have to lose Soylent Cola but it's a price worth paying. J Alan Smith (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent article which provides a good index to these notable topics, per our list guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except of course that without independent reliable sources the items on this list are not notable, something that you are either unable to understand or that you understand but in your zeal to keep everything you choose to ignore. Otto4711 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More personal attacks? Is everyone voting Keep "unable to understand" Wikipedia policy? Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone is working towards independent reliable sources for all of them. J Alan Smith (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I honestly think that somone whould take a moment and define what indiscriminate actually means, rather than how it appears to be being used in this discussion. As there is a discriminate inclusion criteria for this list (being a beverage presented in fiction, which is also only fictional). Indiscriminate would be to pull 5 or more disparate things out of mid-air and list them on a page. Like for example if I listed acetylsalicylic acid, Snoopy, Australia, fire, and hard drive all on a page. Then someone could possibly suggest that those 5 are disparate enough as to be indiscriminate information. But a page with clear inclusion criteria, and which can be referenced with verifiable reliable sources, simply doesn't fall into the category of indiscriminate information. And incidentally, it's only "can", because, as we're a wiki, the idea is that references will be added eventually. So we only need to WP:AGF that such references likely exist. And even better, if in doubt - go find some : ) - jc37 11:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jc37 demolishes the 'indiscriminate' charge. Individual items on lists are not required to be notable. The category and the list can co-exist in harmony and indeed there is much on the list that is missing from the category. Occuli (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2009 (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.