Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star wars pez

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. The added references helped bring about a consensus that the subject is indeed notable. Though whether or not the content should be merged into a (yet to exist) PEZ master list, is an editorial matter that can be discussed in the usual manner, as and when. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars pez

This is a list of indiscriminate information and appears to be fancruft Madcoverboy (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable), What Wikipedia is, WP:ITSCRUFT not being a valid reason for deletion, and per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built (article is an obvious work in progress that is mere hours old and clearly improving per [1]). Recommend retitling to capitalize the "w" in "wars" to be "Wars." In any event, the topic is covered in published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. no claim of notability is possible. References are of poor quality --T-rex 01:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is not a good reason for deletion and as for claim of notability, appeareances in published books as well as coutless other good quality references takes care of that. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - per nom is a great reason to use. it's simply saying that i agree with the nominators reasoning for deletion. Also google search results do not constitute "good quality references", especially when the first result is "SpectrumNet Web Pages - Wacky Unique Family Fun Museums in the San Francisco Bay Area" --T-rex 04:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a poor reason when the nomination is based on WP:ITSCRUFT and calling a discrminate list "indiscriminate". The results in the google search constitute good quality references if you weed through them. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRUFT is a great reason to delete. and there still are no good sources at all. I looked at your google link, and it's all shit. --T-rex 04:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Cruft" is the worst reason possible to delete as it is pure subjectivity, not a policy or guideline, and incivil, i.e. not one to be used in a serious or respectful discussion. Published books are indeed good sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What published books? The one link you provided is a single page in a picture book. see need sources --T-rex 04:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Other published books also reference the Star Wars pez dispensers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And this link doesn't load. --T-rex 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM is an "argument" to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you should read before you post. "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom."" DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 02:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case the rationales are subjective essay based ("fancruft" is not policy) and indiscriminate is not accurate as it specifically concerns Star Wars pez dispensers). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not Wookipedia. Some articles are suitable in your wikias, not in Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why both Wookiepedia and Wikipedia can't cover these sorts of articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason is called "unencyclopedic" --T-rex 04:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is an "argument" to avoid per WP:UNENCYC. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - unencyclopedic is the single reason anything is deleted --T-rex 14:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This topic has hundreds of reliable sources available on the internet. A glance at my userpage and my previous contribs in AfDs will show that I am no inclusionist. By the same guidelines and policies that people use to have articles deleted, this article should stay. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modification Is it really necessary to break all the type of Pez dispensers into separate articles? If so, this article should be named as a List of Star Wars dispensers, with Wars capitalized as it is a proper name.Chef Tanner (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to merging and redirecting to a master list of pez dispensers and I definitely agree with the rename aspect or of using the sources available to make the article be more prose in nature as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a master list of dispensers? I glanced the main article for pez and didn't notice it, but I might of missed it. We have lists like that for different cuisines which is why I don't oppose this article, not to mention they are re-releasing all of the Star Trek dispensers so I might be biased (joking).--Chef Tanner (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. I can find a [[Category:Star_Wars_merchandise]], a star wars merch wiki (to which this info should be transwikied regardless of the outcome), but no List of Star Wars merchandise or Star Wars Merchandise to which this article may be merged. I'm concerned that the two available references both point to sites that SELL these items. That is not a good sign. What remains is a price guide. I am not inclined to feel THAT provides notability for the subject. Were that the case (this isn't WP:OTHERSTUFF), any pez dispenser in the catalog could be deemed notable, because the price guide is the sole reliable source asserting notability (assuming they are mentioned in the price guide). Protonk (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep, given book sourcing. Given the sourcing issues presented in the comment above, I can't really see how notability of this subject is established according to our policies. the reference links to the sale websites probably borderline violates WP:SPAM. If we can find a reliable secondary source which covers these items in a significant fashion, I'll reverse my position. As far as I'm concerned, the Price Guide (if it is anything like other price guides I've seen) is unlikely to present significant coverage. Something like this:

NYT "Boy, these SW Pez dispenzers are super campy, lets have an interview with George Lucas to find out more about them."

GL "I like money, so I plastered the faces of beloved characters on everything."
NYT "Isn't that awful? I mean, you are ruining my childhood"
GL "I'm also a bad director."

NYT "I know. Han shot first, you jerk."

Would be fine. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- They are covered in published books: published books, published books, etc. Multiple references in published sources establishes notability as consistent with our policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. that first one is super sketchy (can barely see the picture among the other merch). The second one is fine. I'll keep it. The links to the sites probably need to go, though. Protonk (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: those links to the websites selling the dispensers are gone. Protonk (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only the news articles didn't have to pull out the puns: "MAY THE PEZ BE WITH YOU CHEWY ON THIS: `STAR WARS' CHARACTERS TO LAND AT CANDY STORE NEAR YOU.(Lifestyle)" and "NEW "STAR WARS" DISPENSERS MAKE THEIR PEZ-ENCE KNOWN.(LIFE)"... Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for "Star Wars" +Pez on Google News gets 403 hits. Many of these are not passing mentions, they are articles about the Star Wars Pez dispensers. Some are in supermarket trade pubs, some in regular newspapers. They seem to have released giant Pez just for Star Wars, making them unique. And they charged $25 each for them, a fact mentioned regularly in the sources. It would be great to see these sources turned into a proper article, not just a list. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not cruft: It's verifiable real-world info about real-world items. But I agree that having a seperate article for Star Wars pez is overdoing it, therefore merge and redirect, or keep, at least until a 'master' pez list is created into which it could be merged. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename, or, at the very worst, Merge into a master Pez list, per Everyme. GlassCobra 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Garbage WP:CRUFTCRUFT nomination. Article needs cleanup and addition of all new sources that have been found with a very simple google search. SashaNein (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is whether candies based on the characters of a particular fiction are worth including in wikipedia. I see no basis for excluding them,if the material can be sourced, and it can be. The reasons given in the nomination do not seem to actually apply: this is not indiscriminate information any more than a list of all the counties in Iowa would be. That they are to trivial to mention is a version of IDONTLIKEIT. At present by the rules, anything that has sources is not too trivial to mention. What would be inappropriate are articles on each of the individual items. It's hard to make a rule about things like this, and the deault is to keep the information. Yes,I agree with the nom that they are not important to me, but that's another matter DGG (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article has been significantly improved over its original form. Actual sources have been added. It has also been transwikied to the Sw merch wiki. It is short and spare and will remain so, but seems to be much better than it was originally. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed in an attempt to meet MOS. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references confirm notability. Everyking (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (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.