Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies (3rd 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 all for a variety of reasons, including tha notability of both the fictional companies and the works in which they are featured, and the fact that it is not an indiscriminate collection of links. Note that while consensus can change, it may not have been reasonable to expect a consensus this strong to change so quickly. Some clean-up could be used on all of these articles. Pastordavid (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional companies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another extremely loose connection of minor topics, most of which do not have their own articles and aren't notable on their own. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article hasn't been improved since the previous AFD, cites no reliable sources, and will never be complete.

Also included in this nomination are:
 * Core desat 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Core desat 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Core desat 06:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 *  Keep  for the same reasons as the previous AfDs for the topic -- Masterzora (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment what is your rational for revisting these AfDs? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I gave it in the nomination. In five months there has been little in the way of improvement (if possible), and the article violates policy. --Core desat 06:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It seems to me that renominating articles as a group like this is doomed to failure. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, three related articles with the same problem were sent to AFD and were all deleted (see the list). Of course fictional companies are going to appear in fiction, however, there is no point in listing every single occurrence of this, and (as I stated) doing so violates policy. --Core desat 08:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT and WP:NOT are a major problem here, which can't be imrpoved because it's already the basis for the whole article. The last few months of no improvement just enhance this interpretation. – sgeureka t•c 13:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all - these are all indiscriminate collections of loosely associated topics. Most works of fiction make some mention or other of some fictional business and in the overwhelming majority of cases that fictional business has little significance to the work of fiction and absolutely no real-world significance. On those rare occasions when a fictional business has any real-world notability that requires coverage outside the article for its fictional source then it should have a separate article and be located in the appropriate category. "It mentions a fictional business" is not a theme of a work of fiction. The lists do not meet the guidelines of WP:LIST as they do not serve any navigational function (most of the links are to the fiction in which the business is found, not to articles about the businesses, which don't by and large exist), nor do they serve as a resource for topic development since there is no notability for the vast majority of the listed businesses. While the lists are informational in nature, the information they are gathering is indiscriminate and thus the guideline for lists is trumped by the policy WP:NOT. See similar deletions for a list of fictional restaurants and a list of fictional online services. Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Frivolous third time nomimination, non trivial list which is an interesting resource. Hektor (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling the nomination "frivolous" is an egregious failure to assume good faith and fails to recognize that consensus can change. WP:INTERESTING is not a compelling argument. Otto4711 (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Consensus can change" does not mean consensus has changed. Consensus acheived by refusing to accept any interpretation of policy that conflicts with your own point of view is not "consensus" at all. DHowell (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete All per the comments above re WP:NOT and WP:NOT. See List of fictional television stations and count the usages of the word "probably" to gauge the degree of WP:OR here. --Jack Merridew 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That an article may contain original research is not a reason to delete the article, but a reason to delete the original research. Go ahead and remove the "probably" statements if you dispute them. DHowell (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was only a secondary issue; see my first sentence for my primary reasoning. --Jack Merridew 16:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I reeely didn't want to say keep. But in reading the article, it is a notable collection of information.  It needs to be seriously cleaned up, but Afd is not cleanup.  Most of the entries listed are completely nonnotable.  Once cleanup takes place, it may very well be that a category is sufficient, but without such a cleanup, it is not self-evident. -Verdatum (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear The list of companies needs a lot more work as it is currently quite illiterate - doesn't have The White Company, for example. But, as you say, that's no reason to delete.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This should go because of the indiscriminate nature of the collection. It is a selective collection based on what a few editors find personally interesting. There are thousands of times as many fictional companies as the ones listed here, so it is unmaintainable. No independent and reliable source is presented to show that this particular sample of fictional companies is more notable than all the omitted ones. Also the article fails WP:NOT and WP:NOT. The best arguement presented for its retention is that it is interesting, which bumps into the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Edison (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Strangely enough, this list actually is not "interesting", although that's not a reason for deletion either. It does serve the function of providing information about particular names being associated with a particular source.  My support is weakening, however, because this is pushing the limits of usefulness, simply because it's too large a list.  I'm confused by the nomination-- we've got archived debates for fictional companies in television, in cinema, in video games; one of the debates redirects to a debate over "Buy n Large".  Moreover, I'm fairly certain that there have been prior nominations and debates for "fictional stores", if not for fictional radio stations and fictional TV stations.  The nomination, like the lists, may suffer from the problem of trying to accomplish too many things at the same time.  Mandsford (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep just because it says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information douse not mean that you can openly discriminate against information, these list do not have a Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases, Statistics, or News reports so they do not fall under WP:NOT. I am sick of people using this as an excuse to delaet everything, because of people like you an Emmey award winning tv series goes from having a large detailed article, episode guide, and character guide, with a page for each episode and character to short article, a bare bones list with no information besides the name the episode, and a sentence for each character. Just because a few people thought that an award winning show with millions of viewers was not notable, had OR because there were to lazy to watch it or look at the sources, or my favorite, there is to much information in the artical. please do not deleat this like so much other good information on this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.40.207 (talk • contribs)
 * Not a reason to keep this list. --Core desat 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many articles have to be deleted under WP:NOT that do not fit into the delineated items before people will begin to recognize that the delineated list is not exhaustive. The items listed at NOT#IINFO are items for which consensus has been reached. It is not a list of the only collections of information that are indiscriminate. Otto4711 (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, how many? Please name at least one article (and up to as many as you are willing to document) which was deleted for the sole reason of violating WP:NOT, which did not fit under one of the enumerated items. That means no other policy or guideline reason was given for deletion, not WP:NOT, not WP:N, not WP:V, not WP:NOR. DHowell (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's OK, I have far better things to do with my time than go back through old AFDs for something that makes no difference. WHether it's one article or a thousand it doesn't change the point that the list at IINFO is not exhaustive or exclusionary. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note Well I've cleaned up non-notable sources from this list. Effectively this worked out to clearing out all listings that did not have their own article, and red links that appeared to not warrant their own article.  (Provided it isn't reverted) You may wish to review the changes. -Verdatum (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The companies list looks better, but the problems with the other three still stand. However, all need criteria for inclusion. --Core desat 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Indeed, the other pages still need cleaning. I don't know how time constrained this AFD makes things.  I was kind of hoping I could get some general concensus of approval on the main page before I spent the time cleaning up the others.  I don't want to do hours of cleanup just to result in a delete because the majority of opinions given came from before my efforts. -Verdatum (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Followup I've cleaned up the Radio and Television articles. The stores article makes no assertions of notability, and I believe some stores are already listed in the companies list.  So I'd say at least delete that one and allow new entires to be added to the companies list.  No need for a size fork now that it's been cleaned up. -Verdatum (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * These are indiscrimiate lists and they're not notable. The "AfD is not cleanup" argument doesn't work because they've all been through AfD previously (with the exception of the stores) and have had ample time to be fixed. They have not been. Delete these ridiculous articles. I (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply Perhaps you are not familiar with WP:NOTCLEANUP. There is no deadline on cleanup.  AFD is the question of whether or not an article of that title should exist, and whether there is anything so egregious in the article that it should either be removed entirely, or there is effectively no salvagable content in the article, making it better to start from scratch.  Deleting a messy article deletes it's history, which makes it harder to see the evolution of the article, and thus harder to determine where it went bad (WP:LOSE). -Verdatum (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That counterargument doesn't work. These articles have been subject to scrutiny on several occasions, were kept, then promptly abandoned again; if it takes an AFD to get people to clean them up, then the AFD is justified, although I personally think they still violate WP:NOT either way. The reason articles keep coming to AFD after previous "keep" results is that they are abandoned after they are kept, and are never cleaned up. Some articles will never be cleaned up (and will always violate policy, in the case of the co-nominated lists), and as such deletion is justified. --Core desat 23:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me, but I don't understand the basis for this argument. As the essay I linked says, "Articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet" If it bothers you that an article has not been cleaned up, what prevents you from cleaning it up?  If you could show me a policy, or even an essay that says, "There is no deadline for cleanup, unless an article has been through AFD two or more times." I would be most greatful. -Verdatum (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Having reviewed WP:NOT, I disagree that this policy is in violation, because I do not see these lists as indiscriminate. However WP:NOT appears to be.  It is a shame because I really do see value to these lists as research tools, as long as they are properly referenced.  However, I'm not seeing a loophole on this. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all . It is not indiscriminate--it contains a list of only those in notable works. Indiscriminate would be a random assortment of all possible fictional companies, which is not the case. The contents of a list article are not required to be notable on their own--there is no such guideline or practice. The sources are the works of fiction referenced, which are generally now considered suitable sources for the content of the works. (and most of these will additionally be given in the reviews, etc.) Those were the reasons given--none of them hold. Very clear keep in the previous afds, and apparently the idea is to continue nominating until deleted. The closing was keep, not keep and clean up--the article was found acceptable. We no not discard articles because they are not being improved, or were would not have very much content left. It seems odd for people to nominate an article for deletion for not being improved when they havent tried to improve it.  The effort in nominating and renominated this and similar articles  this should have gone to improving it. (and similarly for the co-nominated articles). The real reason might be that some few people dont think the contents of fiction to be desirable content--but this is a general encyclopedia, and this is a useful list. Useful is a criterion for list articles. DGG (talk) 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I effectively agree, I see no policy that states that "useful is a criterion for list articles". The problem seems to be that these articles had no explicit selection criteria.  Because the domain of "in fiction" is unbounded, it cannot and should not be a "complete list".  It should instead be a selected list.  Without an explicit selection criteria, it has the potential to get as messy as it was before I cleaned it up.  I arbitrarily picked the selection criteria of notable because it seems to be a good starting point.  When I apply this criteria to the list of stores in fiction, the article shrinks down to something like one entry, so it seems like a fork from the list of companies done for size that is no longer appropriate in the least (again, assuming my changes hold, and they're really too new to be making such an assumption). -Verdatum (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep All Per WP:DEL, it is contrary to policy to renominate so soon in the hope of getting a different result.  Bundling several unrelated nominations together is disruptive too.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon, but this is not a speedy keep candidate, and I would like you to assume good faith. --Core desat 11:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep is applicable per WP:SK 2. I am not the only editor in this discussion to find your nomination ill-founded.  Please consider that you are proposing the deletion of multiple articles which were the work of many other editors and, in so-doing, want to second-guess a discussion which went into this matter at length just a few weeks ago.  I'm not seeing anything new in your nomination which warrants this.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That criterion is not applicable either - last I checked there were substantial unrelated arguments in favor of deletion. --Core desat 14:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * keep and cleanup companies, Merge or Delete the rest. Most of the articles in the companies articles meet WP:FICTION easily, just remove and AFD the ones that don't, and I understand the importance of fictional companies in pop culture, like Acme. The other three fail WP:NOT and most of the articles listed are to rediect targets and such, therefore fails WP:FICTION, the ones that has their own indiviual articles should be merged or deleted if there aren't any. Secret account 14:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep &mdash; I am only voting to keep this article because of Wikipedia policy on renominations: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." Six months is reasonable, three and half months is not.  If you hadn't been so zealous, I would have voted for deletion because it was gutted.  What is left would be better handled as a category. But because of the unreasonably-short time period, I vote with Wikipedia policy to keep this list. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't work for the co-nominated articles. --Core desat 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep &mdash; I checked the co-nominated articles. The radio and television articles do provide additional structure that a category wouldn't provide.  The stores article provides many that wouldn't have their own article, and these items are related items.  So for all of the co-nominated articles, I say keep as well. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all. Enough already. This is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" except in the minds of those wanting to delete this article, who pick the most vague wording of any policy in order to justify elevating personal opinion to the status of policy. Descriptive information about fictional elements sourced to fictional works do not violate any Wikipedia policy (especially not verifiability, original research, or WP:NPOV, the classic core "non-negotiable" policies—other policies and guidelines can be ignored when consensus deems them inapplicable). There is strong consensus among editors (as opposed to the systemically biased claimed "consensus" among those who participate in AfD or rewrite policy pages to shape Wikipedia into their own personal vision of what it should be) that these articles should exist. The most reliable source for any fictional item is the work of fiction itself, claims of no reliable sources are unfounded. No one believes this list should contain every fictional company or station that ever existed; limiting the lists to those which are significant elements of notable works of fiction would be a reasonable inclusion criteria. The entire notablity of fiction guideline is currently under dispute because it is attempting to push the minority views of those arguing to delete here, which do not in any way, shape, or form represent the consensus of Wikipedians who write articles on fictional topics. Further, any remaining perceived problems with the articles can be fixed, by trimming, merging, editing to provide more context, adding sources, etc. Stop deleting the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors because they don't fit your particular vision of what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia is a community project to build an encyclopedia, a "comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"; driving away people because they write about things you are not interested in is detrimental to the most fundamental goals of this project. Aggressive deletion campaigns drive away many editors who are acting in good faith and they are a horrible way to achieve "consensus". DHowell (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Enough already" is in no way a compelling argument and it ignores the simple fact that consensus can change. I'm not sure where you get the notion that these aricles aren't intended as repositories for every fictional company ever mentioned, because that's certainly what they're being used for. Your drawing of a completely artificial distinction between "editors" and "people who participate in AFD" is a stunning failure to assume good faith, demonstrably false and a grievous insult. You should be ashamed. Clearly, since a number of similar articles have been deleted in the recent past there is no such clear-cut consensus, another out-and-out falsehood on your part and something else for you to be ashamed of. "Stop deleting the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors" is nothing but a phony emotional appeal. Thousands of editors put effort into the articles that get deleted every day. While it is truly unfortunate that editors spend their time working on articles that do not meet the basic minimum standards for inclusion the simple fact of that effort does not in any way justify keeping otherwise unsuitable articles. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful and entertaining article.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    22:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither "useful" nor "entertaining" addresses the policy-based objections to these articles. Otto4711 (talk) 04:12, 17 December 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.