Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Pibb in popular culture


 * 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   redirect to Pibb Xtra.  MBisanz  talk 04:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Pibb in popular culture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded; prod removed when I attempted to merge it into Pibb Xtra; merge reverted. This is an unsourced collection of indiscriminate trivia related to the soda brand owned by the Coca Cola Company. This clearly cannot stand alone as an article. B.Wind (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- OlEnglish (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any of the items that can be sourced with Pibb Xtra, then delete this as an unnecessary redirect.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  05:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but not possible under the GFDL.  Graymornings (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Since most of the artice is trivial (and unsourced) anyway, I'll just go with delete.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  16:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all of it as original research, no indication that anyone has written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 09:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, no merge. Even if these can be sourced, all of them are trivial - mentions in stand-up jokes, offhand references in The Simpsons, etc. Absolutely useless.  Graymornings (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I nuked a similarly unreferenced and utterly trivial section from the Pibb Xtra article in November 2007, and when I removed it from my watchlist, the cancer returned, metastasized and migrated. This is a mind-numbingly long list of indiscriminate and trivial mentions, totally unreferenced (and likely unreferenceable), pointless, and utterly unencyclopedic. Burn it with fire and be done with it.  Horologium  (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The mention that this brand was a sponsor for a NASCAR driver is not trivial and should be merged somewhere in the main article even if several of the others are trivial. - Mgm|(talk) 14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Indiscriminate list. No merge. KnightLago (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Any part of this not-very-interesting trivia, about TV sightings of an item, can be mentioned somewhere in the Mr. Pibb article. The drink is now called Pibb Xtra.  Because of its "sounds a lot like" name, Mr. Pibb had been considered to be a generic version of Dr. Pepper, even though it was introduced by the Coca-Cola company. Mandsford (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read Merge and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not. I've noticed that quite a few of the admins around here have this bizarre "black or white" attitude, where if you breathe the word "merge", they have one of these reactions: (a) "How dare you say merge!! AfD is not the place for a merge!!" or (b) "When you said merge, you meant that you wanted to keep this article, or else you would have said delete." or (c) "When you said merge, you meant that you want this article quickly deleted without a redirect, or else you would have transferred the information over yourself."  For some reason, I see a lot of this lately, and the practical effect is to make people reluctant to even suggest a middle ground.  Why can't they just simply say, "The result was _____"?  There's no point in telling me how to !vote.  Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he just meant that it's impossible to merge info to the main article and then delete this one. (See where I mentioned the GFDL above).  Graymornings (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think he meant that. Merges like that happen all the time... the admin usually gives time for some of the information to climb into the lifeboats and climb onto the Californian before the Titanic sinks to the bottom of the ocean.  Mandsford (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect. Mr Pibb?  Really?  Deletion is also a possibility, but probably a tad harsh.  --Bobak (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all in popular culture articles as inherently non-notable. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. With entries like "The drink is mentioned in the song 'An idea for a movie' on The Vandals Album..."  this is an indiscriminate list of trivial "mentions" and other "appearances".  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Every instance where Mr. Pibb has been mentioned on television. Garbage like this is impossible to remove from Wikipedia, even though it should be deleted. Oh boy, it's been flagged for Rescue; that means a high-quality article is on the way. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, please.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut and paste into Pibb Xtra since the GDFL does not allow a merge with histories. Then set a redirect. Then delete the list.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge back to "Pibb Xtra" (though I feel there should be a separate article on Mr. Pibb—it is just not the same drink as Pibb Xtra). I've referenced some of the items, so this should not be deleted. Trim the unsourced stuff out, if you feel it's too much. Though everything could be sourced to primary sources, perhaps limiting it to those references mentioned in secondary reliable sources would be a way to keep it from bloating. Though I'm quite sure there must be a secondary reference somewhere for the American Dad episode besides TV.com and blog postings, I just haven't find it online. DHowell (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Into Pibb Xtra, as suggested by the previous two editors. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:45, 13 February 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.