Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of products in The Simpsons (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 No consensus due to the issue of notability real-life/world in which it is split in this debate.--JForget 00:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of products in The Simpsons

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

What about things like Krusty-Os, Buzz Cola and Squishees which have been sold as real world products? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz Cola and Squishees was part of Kwik-E-Mart#7-Eleven promotion and can be found there. Krusty-Os could be moved to Krusty's page. --Maitch (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Unfortunately at the moment the article is only sourced to other episodes of The Simpsons. If there were some noticeable effort at secondary sourcing, that would go a long way towards establishing some modicum of notability. Cirt (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - the products that have any real-world notability already have articles, and any that don't can be merged into other more appropriate articles. The in-universe problems for the rest appear insurmountable.
  talk) 14:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's not entirely true, because products like Squishees, Buzz Cola and Krusty Os have been sold as real world products, but don't really need their own page and have been in too many episodes to go any specific page. Perhaps the Kwik-E-Mart page, but that is not the products only claim to notability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as Otto notes, those items with real world notability already have their own articles, and th rest is just fancruft and in-universe details. I tagged the article for notability and unencyclopedic concerns almost a month ago, and no one has done any significant work to address the concerns (or even refuted them). Collectonian (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No skittlebrau? Delete. Lugnuts (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of secondary sourcing for this topic. The article presents a
  synthesis of primary sources to give the false appearance of an actual topic. Even if there was some secondary coverage existed about any of the products, it should be covered in the main TV show article instead. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep if it were an indiscriminate list of names, I'd say "delete", But the article arguably does have some real-world relevance, in that these items are a commentary on the advertising of actual products; thus, Laramie cigarettes are a commentary on Marlboros; Buzz Cola a parody of Jolt Cola, Pepsi and any other cola whose advertising is satirized; Malibu Stacy is Barbie, etc. Since they can't directly make a put-down of the product of a television advertiser, these surrogates accomplish the purpose indirectly. Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Most (all?) of the products you mention have articles already and so any verifiable information about their commentary on existing products should be there. If there is reliable sourcing establishing the notability of the Simpsons' parodying of products as a concept then it should have its own article along the lines of the
  talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep hard to say why, but I guess I feel many products have had a lasting and important impact on the show, and this is a nice place for them to be. Where is Laramie Cigarettes or the others supposed to go? Most of them don't have a page they could be incorporated into. Rhino131 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some of the products have been sold as real world items, and that right there is notability. I'll add some sources -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of the real-world products, which have their own articles already, is
  talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You really should take the time to look things up before you comment. The only item with a page is Duff Beer. Squishees, Krusty Os and Buzz Cola have all been sold as items and don't have their own pages. That right there is real world info. Not to mention that several of these items, including Laramie Cigarettes, have been analyzed in books. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's all fan-cruft and not notable in real-life. Martarius (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. It would be cruft if we included EVERY SINGLE item, but we only include major ones. And some of them ARE notable in real life because they've been sold as products. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how do we determine what item is major? If the article isn't deleted, all items that lack secondary sourcing should be excluded. We can't purport to say that a particular item is major when it's not substantiated independently. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, as of now everything on the list has either been sold in real life or has been featured multiple times during the show. I would say those, and any others which meet one or both of those, are major. Rhino131 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all the products mentioned are satire of modern day prodcuts and are used quite frequently in the show. So much, that in their own way they are like minor characters (there is a list of
  List of cities in the United States with over 100,000 people for proof, is it perfect? No, but it is decent, and much better than the previous version and should certainly not be deleted, neither should this page. 11kowrom 16:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs
  )
  • Actually, the reason why I nominated this is list is because I believe it to be beyond repair. Scorpion has added some references for the stuff you can find elsewhere, but that is about as far as you can take this list. I dare you to find any reliable sources containing out-of-universe stuff. I certainly can't. If I could I would not have nominated this list. --Maitch (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is of course an alternative, which is to delete anything that doesn't have any cited out-of-universe stuff. This means keep Buzz Cola, Duff Beer, Krusty-O's, Radioactive Man Comics and Squishee and delete Canyonero, Malibu Stacy, Krusty Burger, Laramie, "Li'l Bastard" products, Playdude, The Springfield Shopper. This of course will result in a rather incomplete list. --Maitch (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As I'm kinda blocked indefinately I don't suppose there's any point voting as it won't count, but I happened to check my old user page and see this was here. Just as a point of information, I think it's worth noting that this article was created as an amalgamation of smaller even more fan-crufty articles on Buzz Cola and Laramie Cigarettes; I felt that this article compromised between removing them all and having lots of slightly-embarassing-that-they're-on-Wikipedia articles. Perhaps rename it List of reocurring products in The Simpsons and treat it as a character page, a la
  Van Houten family or something like that? The editor formerly known as Robdurbar 129.234.4.10 (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Oh! Hello
  Wonderfool. You were the guy who deleted the Main Page and blocked Mr. Wales indefinately. Right? Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. Most of the items on this list have no assertion of real-world notability. Those that do (i.e. have actually been sold in real life) are essentially already covered at Kwik-E-Mart#7-Eleven promotion. Nothing on this list is notable enough to have an article in its own right, and the collection of them together certainly isn't any more notable, so I support deletion. Terraxos (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP What's the harm? It's a reasonably good article. The products mentioned are major artifacts of the most significant cartoon in television history. Why WOULD there be any reference to anything besides the Simpsons? That's nonsensical. Apply an appropriate standard. I found this article by Googling Canyonero, so it's been of its intended use to at least one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The list is not that useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • using the argument "It's not useful" is not a valid argument, see
    WP:USEFUL. The reason the article is notable is because it mentions items that would not be mentioned in as much detail as they would be elsewhere. 11kowrom 15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 11kowrom (talk • contribs
    )

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.