Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional companies (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 Keep. PeaceNT 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies[edit]

Incredibly loosely-associated collection of topics. Ranging from the sinister DHARMA Initiative, to the meta-fictional Vandelay Industries. Unacceptable per WP:NOT#DIR. Eyrian 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep as a valid index to a discreet and identifiable concept that serves better than a category would. FrozenPurpleCube 23:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though somewhat long, it's drawn from multiple sources, and it works better this way than as a bunch of Wikipedia articles. Who knew that there were THAT many fictitious mining and petroleum companies? Some of this doesn't belong, but there actually is a reason for making note of fictitious names that have already been used, the main one being to make them readily identifiable as a fictitious company; the secondary reason being to prevent re-use. Nom almost had me persuaded until the WP:NOT#DIR part. Which of these companies am I supposed to call on the telephone? Mandsford 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NOT#DIR: Wikipedia is not a place for "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". --Eyrian 01:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

From the same section: "such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations," which while an unbounded condition, makes me wonder, exactly what does a loosely-associated topic mean there? I suggest instead of asserting this is one, you convince us why it's a problem in its own self. FrozenPurpleCube 02:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means that there is no real commonality between these items. Understanding one doesn't really help to understand another. These companies aren't in the same universe, they don't work to the same ends, they aren't all incorporated in the same way, they don't employ the same sorts of people, they aren't even all real in their own fictional settings. Aside from being fictional, they've got virtually nothing in common, and their tenuous association means very little to their function. --Eyrian 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In this case, commonality is being a) fictional b) a company (which in this case is referring to a corporation with a further division based on the involved industry. Works for me as a reasonable basis for a list. After all, it's not like the Fortune 500 is really any different. They don't work to the same ends, they aren't all incorporated in the same way, they don' employ the same sorts of people, etc. This isn't a list of companies organized along the lines of Dupont or Companies that follow the tenets of Adam Smith. That would be its own separate list. Sometimes a generic list is helpful for general browsing, as opposed to a specialized list. They can co-exist, as redundancy is not a bad thing. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the Fortune 500 has hundreds of independent references signifying its importance as a list. Try again. And it doesn't matter at all if the list is helpful. It still is unencyclopedic. I could really use a sandwich recipe right now. Therefore, the Wikipedia article on sandwiches should have that information? Wrong, because that's not what an encyclopedia is about. --Eyrian 04:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But we can still have articles like List of Japanese companies. By analogy we can say that this is the list of companies that exist in one place, a fictional world. -- Taku 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the Fortune 500 has hundreds of independent references is probably why it has an article on its own. Though oddly none of those references are on its page. The only links are to the list itself. Or search engines. Huh. However, this is a list of companies, which is a different concept than an article on fictional companies. Attempts to confuse the issue by saying this is just like a recipe are not convincing. These pages are nothing like recipes. If you want to worry about the content of the Sandwich article, try Talk:Sandwich instead. FrozenPurpleCube 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Fortune 500 is completely different. The article there is an article about a real-world list that has achieved notability. This article is a list of companies. There is no authoritative source, just what Wikipedians add. The analogue of the Fortune 500 article would be the "Wikipedia's List of fictional companies" article. Totally different issues, and they work on a totally different basis. And no, the sandwich point is very relevant. You're claiming that usefulness is important. I am showing you that it is not. --Eyrian 18:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't shown me in any way that usefulness in terms of navigation isn't important. You're merely asserting it without actually proving it. If anything, you're showing me that WP:BURO is more important. FrozenPurpleCube 18:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this list offers little to nothing in the way of navigational utility, since the vast majority of items on the list do not have articles and will never have articles and many of the blue links are not articles on the companies but instead are redirects to the fiction from which the item is drawn, which have their own links in the same line. Yeah, we're just swooping around the fictional company articles off this list! Otto4711 19:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a great argument to the navigation value of this list, that many of the companies will never have articles. That is indeed a valid reason to keep this list over using a category. If you want to remove the redirects so they don't go to the main work of fiction, well, that's your choice. I could see it either way. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination fails on its merits. Nominator continues to fail to understand what a "loosely associated topic" is, and as such continues to make bad nominations, tying up Wikipedia editors' time. How is this different from vandalism, other than being even more harmful to Wikipedia's coherence and integrity? RandomCritic 02:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is different from vandalism because the nominator is engaged in a good faith effort to improve the project. You may not like the nominator's efforts but you have no call to question the good faith of either the nomination or the nominator and your continual accusations and comparisons to vandalism are a staggering incivility and failure to assume good faith. Otto4711 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would be better of as a category. Artw 02:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Manticore, Mandsford. Edward321 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list format permits even contextual information which a format does not. FrozenPurpleCube explains the details well, and they are further discussed in the first AfD, which I read as keep 11 to 6, 8 months ago. If anything, I think the understanding of what makes a good list has increased since then, and this one is a good list. DGG (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete over categorization of fictional things and list of loosely associated topics. What does Shigamatsu Han and Galaxy Corp have to do with each other? Put the notable ones in a category and delete Corpx 05:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Manticore. Wl219 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lists can still be encyclopedic and this one is indeed so. -- Taku 05:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep helps navigation within and use of Wikipedia.KTo288 17:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the excellent arguments above, particularly Manticore. Fairly obviously this is a misapplication of what "list of loosely-associated topics" is meant to apply to. --JayHenry 18:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as others have pointed out above, there is nothing "loose" about the association between these articles and, more importantly, lists provide a way of navigating articles that is far superior over the use of categories (they allow more context, other sorting then A-Z and are more user friendly). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Eyrian had me convinced until Fortune 500 and List of Japanese companies. The sandwich example that he brought up was totally off-topic and pushed me towards Keep. Thanks Eyrian for convincing me that this is a useful list. — Val42 00:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list, per Manticore. Hektor 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously obvious delete - This is clearly and unquestionably a directory of loosely associated topics. It is a list seeking to capture every fictional company across every possible medium with absolutely no regard to the triviality of the appearance of the company. There is absolutely no encyclopedic value in a conglomeration of every time some video game designer puts a fake company name on a billboard in the background of a video game. This is not a "list of companies that exist in one place - a fictional world" because this list does not restrict itself to a single fictional world or a single fictional universe. It is trying to capture every fictional world in every fictional universe. It tells us nothing about the companies on the list, nothing about the fiction from which they are drawn, nothing about any inter-relationship between the listed items (as there is none), nothing about the concept of fictional companies and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An unacceptable re-interpretation of what wikipedia is and is not based on personal taste. The list is clearly superior to a category. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.