Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons


 * 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 No consensus. Pascal.Tesson 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

List of products in The Simpsons

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I have reason to believe that such an article does not belong on Wikipedia. First of all, it is indiscriminatory, and treats a fictional topic as though it were something that exists in the real world. This article would be salvageable, but no one publishes articles on this topic. MessedRocker (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Related AFDs (separately nominated to prevent trainwreck):
 * Articles for deletion/Education in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Media in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Politics in The Simpsons (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Religion in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/Traveling in The Simpsons
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional places on The Simpsons
 * Keep. First of all, it is not indiscriminatory, but selective (it shouldn't list one-time gags, only major places). Second, it clearly indicates it is a fictional topic, not a real world one. Third, it is salvageable, and fourth, there are several books about precisely this topic. I don't think it's wise to start wiping all content Wikipedia has on fiction. Having rebutted all "reasons" given for deletion, I think this does belong, although of course it could stand some pruning and cleanup.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when is nominating seven articles for deletion a pogrom on fiction? I could've done a lot more. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as described above, The Simpsons has an iconic status in Wikipedia, and, for that matter, in American culture. Comment being copied and pasted as applicable.  Mandsford 12:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has an iconic status in Wikipedia? I didn't know that was an inclusion standard. I thought things had to be notable, you know, in the real world. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems quite discriminatory to me, since it refers to products on well, the Simpsons. What's indiscriminatory about that?  And in this article, there *are* things here that exist in the real world....and there are articles on them.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's concerns seem to boil down to "there's too much Simpsons stuff on Wikipedia" -- in other words, WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As Radiant! and others have pointed out so well:
 * These articles are not inherently indiscriminate. As editors, we can decide what's in and what's out.
 * They make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Note that the phrase "[in/on] The Simpsons" is in the title for all of them. Is it likely that someone who's never heard of The Simpsons before would think this stuff was real?
 * They are not difficult to source/verify. Even if there were no books or articles on the subject, much of the content can be verified by simply watching the episodes in question.
 * szyslak 16:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

*Keep but backup references to real products with sources and commentary. Merge and Delete Redirect. Just reread the article and most of the 7/11 related items can be merged into Kwik-E-Mart. If any sources to backup the real world info claims in the Buzz Cola section can be found then they can survive somewhere too. ●BillPP (talk 17:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I made myself clear that this is a WP:FICTION violation. Not to mention it is absolutely unreferenced. I like it very much, but that doesn't mean it belongs. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I, Radiant! and others don't think this page contravenes WP:FICTION and/or WP:WAF. And I invoked IDONTLIKEIT in regards to these articles, not whether or not you happen to be a fan of The Simpsons. szyslak  02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. Perhaps it could be cleaned up a bit, but definitely keep. Copy and pasted comment from above as applicable.  Useight 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can't Merge and Delete, that would violate the attribution parts of the GFDL. Besides, the Duff Beer and Flaming's Moes have energy drinks that weren't produced for the the Kwik-E-mart thing. Or Radioactive Man which is a comic in the Simpsons and a real world comic based on the Simpson's comic.  As such, I think this page serves as an effective top-level sorter for those pages. FrozenPurpleCube 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Once all the non-notable items without real world sources are removed, and the items that are duplications of information covered in other articles, there wont be much of an article left and so the remaining information can be merged into appropriate articles. Duff Beer already has an article so doesn't need to be covered here again. There's instructions on WP:MERGE on how to satisfy the GFDL so that's not an issue. ●BillPP(talk 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Changed my comment to redirect so the GFDL violation really wont be an issue.●BillPP (talk 21:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For those who say this article can be cleaned up and there are published materials on this highly specific topic, I challenge you all to improve this article. MessedRocker (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete again, not the simpsons wiki and no real notability established for items in simpsons.  We do not want a list of items by every TV show out there. Corpx 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable list for such a successful series. This list is an alternative to having individual articles on all these fictional products.  --musicpvm 06:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is OK to have individual articles if the individual items have enough real world notability Corpx 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, many of the items in the list are not just one time things, but have been in many different episodes, comics, books, etc. Rhino131 15:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Please, do not delete this article has it seem this is a part of deleting campaign of the simpsons. With out this article and others, many people will not understand about information and background about these subjects. For nmore information, Click Here JoeyLovesSports 01:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Simpsons cruft shouldn't be so wild here on Wikipedia. The Simpsons has been around long, and are very popular: but that doesn't justify all these plot articles on certain subjects. There is a Simpsons wiki for a reason. Move relevant information there. I don't think Wikipedia's goal is to go this detailed into plots for fiction. RobJ1981 05:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Without any real-world references to indicate notability, this amounts to a list of fictional things which appear to be modelled on real-world items. There needs to be sufficient secondary coverage of the impact of these items to justify an artile about them.  Zun aid  ©  ®  12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no reliable sources cited. Equally importantly, do we need a List of products in The Adams Family, List of products in Buffy the vampire slayer...etc? Tim Vickers 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep reliable sources can be found, and some of these products have actually appeared on shelves in real life, so its definitely notable. Tag it with unreferenced for now, then it should be good once references are provided. – Dream out loud  (talk) 04:04, 21 August 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.