Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twinkies 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 09:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Twinkies in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A typically indiscriminate "in popular culture" spinoff article. It is not of encyclopedic value to note that "Buffy the Vampire Slayer references Twinkies several times throughout its run," or that "in an episode of LOST the character Hurley wonders if an endless supply of twinkies are inside of a mysterious hatch." — Krimpet (talk/review) 18:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. 'In popular culture' articles need to die - if any of the information therein is actually encyclopaedic, merge it to the appropriate article. FiggyBee 18:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom, plus the article is full of unreferenced garbage (e.g. Twinkies are not cooked).  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom and large number of precedents against garbage dump "in populr culture" articles. Otto4711 20:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am surprised that one of the best known popular culture reference to Twinkies, the ad campaign that had Marvel Comics and DC superheroes using Twinkies to distract their foes, is only alluded to briefly, mostly by referring to Seanbaby's site.  I think a regrettable precedent has been set for these sorts of articles, but once it exists it should be applied evenhandedly.  Delete and merge back any material of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete An article about Twinkies in popular culture is not needed. Acalamari 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete totally indisciminate Croxley 01:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Neutral - I dislike this article intensely, even though I created it, but it HAS been an effective way of keeping this crap out of the main Twinkie article. It is only linked from that article, which is either good, because it means only the obsessed are seeing it, or it's bad, as further evidence of the total lack of notability of this subject.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike Orangutans, pigs and pterodactyls (which are also under the deletion gun) Twinkies are patented and it is entirely possible (personally, I think probable) that the company that makes them pays to have them inserted into movies and television episodes. It's a common practice, and there's a name for it (I just can't remember the name). Almost every (or maybe every) reference here was to movies or TV. I find that suspicious. I think we should look harder at "[blank] in popular culture" items when "[blank]" is a patented product. Noroton 05:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, if we delete, Catherine, you can keep down any cultural references that pop up in the main article by demanding that any new items in a "Twinkies in popular culture" section be properly referenced. Stick one of those notices in just under the section title. Hardly anybody who sticks in these items seems able to reference them. You might get overruled by consensus, but I doubt it. And no, it's not a perfect solution, but nothing else is either.Noroton 05:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Product placement, you mean? Yes, I'd agree on that poing.  And yes, I agree on requiring references being the best solution, having reread "In popular culture" articles (which has evolved a fair bit since I last read it) and been convinced by the recommendations there.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The solution is to keep this article clean, not to allow the main text to deteriorate again. While I fully understand everyone's distaste to ".. in popular culture" texts they work rather well to keep the body of main article on topic and maintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 15:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, spinning off trivia sections only serves to make the problem worse, by allowing the trivia to accumulate to the point where it gets unmanageable, and making it harder to integrate relevant info into the main article. — Krimpet (talk/review) 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for as the original poster points out, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Strong agreement with previously iterated comments regarding "in popular culture" articles. &mdash; Whedonette (ping) 21:55, 20 March 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.