Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional brands in South Park (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. This is a Secret account 06:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional brands in South Park
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I have no idea how this survived its first AfD. Pure listcruft/fancruft/SouthParkcruft - whatever it is, it's cruft. Fails WP:FICT miserably IMO and belongs on some obsessive fanwiki far away from here. • 97198  talk  11:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, WP:IHATEIT is not a valid reason which is your motivating reason to delete it. Notability is a guideline and a derivative of WP:V and WP:NOR, which this fails neither.  Notability is your excuse to put it here.  Cburnett (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I agree with Cburnett (talk),  Well researched article from a notable show.  Shoessss |  Chat  12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, or move to another suitable wiki if one exists. It's obvious a lot of work has gone into this, but the article provides no evidence that "fictional brands in South Park" is a topic covered by reliable sources independent of the programme (as required by the fiction notability guideline), and the connections the article makes with real brands seem to be original research. EALacey (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems the whole article structure is based on original research (fictional brand <-> real brand; description), and it also lacks real-world notability as outlined in WP:FICT. Editors wishing to keep this list need to give reasons why the WP:FICT guideline does not apply to this article. Transwiki if there's a South Park wikia. – sgeureka t•c 23:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * COMMENT:: A case can be made that :”…*The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop. As an example the following article from “Marketwatch” a division of Dow Jones can be viewed as a notable secondary source.  Shoessss |  Chat  12:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see one trivial sentence ("Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of "South Park" characters.") How does this justify keeping the article? Are there any reliable sources (i.e. not the show itself) that say "SUNTOFU" is based on "Subaru"? If not, then the article is based on Original Research. In the absense of significant reliable sources, the theme of fictional brands can still be summarized in a paragraph in the main South Park article. – sgeureka t•c 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete because Wikipedia is about real-world context, and there is no secondary information about these items. I would imagine that a section about "Fictional brands" on the main South Park article talking about its conception and implementation would be completely appropriate (though a full prose article would be possible if there was sufficient real-world context).  Here, the list is an inappropriate directory of every fictional brand that's been mentioned on the show -- there's no relevance indicated by this collection of indiscriminate information.  I would suggest instead a transwiki to a South Park Wikia and perhaps provide an external link to it under wherever a prose section/article about the show's fictional brands would exist. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is a discriminate and verifiable list with real-world notability and editors willing to improve the article. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No secondary sources are utilized in covering any item in this list. It's merely a compilation of plot information, an explicit violation of WP:PLOT.  Wikipedia needs to implement real-world context, not every indiscriminate happening in a fictional topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * - I am sorry —Erik talk • contrib I have to disagree with you.  The list is not a indiscriminate list, as noted and linked in your deletion comment.  But rather, a very specific reference of fictional “Brand Names” mentioned or shown in a “Notable” TV show.  Regarding “Secondary Sources”, I believe that is provide above over my signature.  Hope this helps. Shoessss |  Chat  01:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When I say that the list is indiscriminate, I mean it in the definition of Wikipedia, not the dictionary definition. According to WP:NOT, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters, and settings are appropriate when paired with such real-world information, but not when they are the sole content of an article."  This article is the epitome of what Wikipedia is not supposed to be.  In addition, the reference you provided had only one mention of South Park, not even related to fictional brands: "Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of 'South Park' characters."  This is marketing information not at all related to this topic.  Because a TV show is notable does not mean anything and everything, especially plot detail as indicated above, is appropriate to write at length. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I love about Wikipedia, disagreements that do not end with someone getting shot. Back to our differences, you looked at one quote from Wikipedia I happened to look at, which is also listed at What Wikipedia is not; “…Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List.”  Which lends itself to my contentions to keep.  Your turn :-)    Shoessss |  Chat  10:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the issue, though. There is no list topic at hand, and if there was a prose topic, that wouldn't permit such a list.  An example like Nixon's Enemies List is a preexisting list.  Same goes for a cast list or a list of episodes.  Here, this list is done piecemeal -- it's originally put together by editors who have some knowledge of South Park and pop culture.  Like someone pointed out above, how does Suntofu → Subaru?  In the contemporary understanding of the show, most of these entries would make sense to a certain audience, but to audiences outside it and audiences in the future, such entries, without verifiability, would be seen as an originally compiled list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not a single third-party source identifying any form of notability for "fictional brands in South Park". Guess what, even lists need to be notable. Shoessss, you quoted what Wiki is not about having lists if they are famous. Again, not a single third-party source suggesting that this list is famous in any way,shape,or form. Not to mention that without even so much as a primary source confirming what all these brands are supposedly spoofing, all that "Real brand" information is original research. It doesn't matter how "obvious" it may be, the fact remains that it is unverified information. So, we have unverified information, coupled with no sources addressing the notability of this topic.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully no one minds, or most likely, I will probably confuse everyone, I am going to try to answer two comments in one response. First to you Erik talk • contrib, you bring up the point; “…Like someone pointed out above, how does Suntofu → Subaru?”  I happened to Google the exact phase you quoted; “…Suntofu → Subaru” guess what? There where actually hits on Google as noted here .  Yes some were Wikipedia itself,  but in addition,  there were independent websites!. Now to you    BIGNOLE     (Contact me), you state that; “….not a single third-party source suggesting that this list is famous in any way, shape, or form.”   I do not believe that Wikipedia needs a third party source, but rather just  needs a secondary “Independent” verifiable,  reliable and trustworthy resource.  That I believe has been provided.  It is not expected or mandated that we check the sources, source - source.  Hopefully, I have answered your concerns.  Have a great day all. Shoessss |  Chat  01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, I must be missing it, because I don't see a single source in the whole article. Exactly where is this "independent, reliable, verifiable, trustworthy source" you are claiming is provided? Just to point out, providing a source here means about as much as providing salt water to someone that lives on the beach. It's not in the article. Secondly, this is the only thing about South Park in your source--"Nickelodeon flew in a candy artist whose clients include Paris Hilton and Nicolas Cage to make lollipops in the shape of "South Park" characters"--Not only does that have nothing to do with how brand names are featured in the show, but it doesn't have anything to do with events in the show at all. Most importantly, notability is "significant coverage", that means more than one source, and more than just a single, solitary line of information that does more than simply mention the show by name.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per EALacey, sgeureka, Erik, and Bignole. Fictional brands have no relevance on Wikipedia under they are independantly notable.  Notability is not inherited - being a part of a larger notable topic does not make something notable.  By that logic, we would have a separate articles for every member of a famous person's family, because that person is notable and their family are associated with them.  Everything must establish notability of it's own accord... think about it; planet Earth is notable, does that mean we need a separate article for everyone who lives on Earth?  I mean, they live on a notable planet, so why not?  (Please note sarcasm)  Listing every fictional brand on a popular TV show is indiscriminate information.  If something is notable for being on South Park, what's to stop me from making a List of characters in South Park with brown hair?  Notability guidelines exist for a reason.  This article fails to establish why it deserves a place on Wikipedia.  It's fancruft - perfect for South Park wiki but certainly not here.     Paul    730  02:45, 30 November 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.