| Revision as of 03:17, 24 September 2007 editGRBerry (talk | contribs)16,708 editsm →List of fictional restaurants: mark sockpuppet← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:11, 24 September 2007 edit undoOtto4711 (talk | contribs)59,599 edits →List of fictional restaurantsNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| :*1) If it is limited to only those notable enough for Misplaced Pages entries then it is completely duplicative of the category. 2) Adding more non-notable restaurants to an already indiscriminate list only makes the list more indiscriminate. 3) If there are thousands of non-notable fictional restaurants that will never ever become notable, it shows why we don't need a list. 4) Adding internal fictional "context" does not make the list any less a conglomeration of unassociated items. 5) This list serves no navigational purpose as its contents are not and in the vast overwhelming majority of cases will never be notable enough to sustain independent articles, and even if they somehow did become notable enough to sustain articles this list would still be nothing more than a ]. 6) This last gripe is nothing but your usual "I like everything, everything should be kept despite its utter lack of encyclopedic content" stuff that you haul out in in almost every one of these debates. It is a deliberate mischaracterization of the content of other editors' comments and opinions and does not address the policy and guideline violations that have been brought up. ] 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | :*1) If it is limited to only those notable enough for Misplaced Pages entries then it is completely duplicative of the category. 2) Adding more non-notable restaurants to an already indiscriminate list only makes the list more indiscriminate. 3) If there are thousands of non-notable fictional restaurants that will never ever become notable, it shows why we don't need a list. 4) Adding internal fictional "context" does not make the list any less a conglomeration of unassociated items. 5) This list serves no navigational purpose as its contents are not and in the vast overwhelming majority of cases will never be notable enough to sustain independent articles, and even if they somehow did become notable enough to sustain articles this list would still be nothing more than a ]. 6) This last gripe is nothing but your usual "I like everything, everything should be kept despite its utter lack of encyclopedic content" stuff that you haul out in in almost every one of these debates. It is a deliberate mischaracterization of the content of other editors' comments and opinions and does not address the policy and guideline violations that have been brought up. ] 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::rejoinders 1 & 2 contradict each other: if it contains the same items it would be redundant, if it contains more it would be indiscriminate, and I suppose if it contained fewer it would be incomplete. Thus we can delete every such list. That's not WP policy, and amounts to a outright refusal to follow either the letter or the spirit of WP:LIST. ''']''' (]) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ::rejoinders 1 & 2 contradict each other: if it contains the same items it would be redundant, if it contains more it would be indiscriminate, and I suppose if it contained fewer it would be incomplete. Thus we can delete every such list. That's not WP policy, and amounts to a outright refusal to follow either the letter or the spirit of WP:LIST. ''']''' (]) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::*Neither the letter nor the spirit of the ''guideline'' WP:LIST trump the ''policy'' ]. A compilation of every fictional restaurant that appeared in any single film or single television episode is clearly a directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common. ] 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *<s>'''Delete''' per nom.--] 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)</s> <small>sockpuppet ] 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<s>'''Delete''' per nom.--] 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)</s> <small>sockpuppet ] 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Delete'''. There are a few notable fictional restaurants, like '']'' Krusty Krab and that place on '']'' (which isn't listed), but including every dive ever mentioned in passing is ridiculous. A category makes more sense. ] 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. There are a few notable fictional restaurants, like '']'' Krusty Krab and that place on '']'' (which isn't listed), but including every dive ever mentioned in passing is ridiculous. A category makes more sense. ] 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:11, 24 September 2007
List of fictional restaurants
- List of fictional restaurants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
To me, at least, seems like plain listcruft. No criteria given for inclusion; notability of many entries questionable. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This actually is informational. New restaurants open every day, as people save up enough money to "start their own business" (and most end up losing all that money and more). In many cases, the small business will select a name that has a connection with something the owner likes. Geez, how many "Mel's Diner" restaurants were created from a show (Alice) that can't even be seen in reruns? Depending on one's point of view, this is a list of names that one could pick or should avoid like expired milk. Mandsford 15:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete - directory of unassocicated items. Practically every movie or TV show has at least one fictional restaurant in it. What does this tell us about fictional restaurants, the fiction from which the restaurant is drawn, their interrelationship or the world around us? Nothing. We are in no way served by a listing of every restaurant or diner that appeared in a single episode of a single TV show. If the fictional restaurant is indeed notable, if for example there are reliable sources that support the notion that there were diners named "Mel's" that were founded based on the TV show, then they should have a standalone article and be in Category:Fictional restaurants. But 99.9% of fictional restaurants are not and never will be notable and an endless list of them is not encyclopedic. Otto4711 17:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As stated above, there is nothing in the restaurants that demand inclusion. An in-universe existance does not support notability in any sense. Very few will have any refereces to cite, and those that do can stay on the associated main page. MarkBul 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I actually used this info in an essay. Fictional restaurants are more noteworthy than real life ones because they have come to the attention of a film or tv audience of millions.Operating 22:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- As written, the list doesn't require such an audience size. ␄ –Iknowyourider (t c) 23:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I was wondering when this list would get here. I've added a few restaurants to it myself, and I like the list, but by Misplaced Pages's guidelines (which I don't necessary agree with...) this is a poster child for deletion. Unsourced context-free list. Not encycolpaedic content. Capmango 23:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Even if some of the entries have notability issues, I think it should be kept. There aren't many places where you can find decently comprehensive lists like this. I find myself very often looking things up on lists when something is too detailed to warrant its own article, and it's less haphazard than trying to dig through other pages for passing references to it. It makes Misplaced Pages less useful and less unnavigable to get rid of things like this. Sifaka 00:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Selective. woefully incomplete and arbitrary list. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of fictional restaurants. Why should Misplaced Pages have a list of some editors' favorite ones, which lack any independent reliable sources with substantial coverage, and so fail WP:N and WP:V? Any notable fictional restaurants could be in a category. Edison 03:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Indiscriminate information, as other editors have said, there are thousands of fictional restaurants, a list of them is meaningless trivia. Entirely unsourced as well. Crazysuit 04:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep reply to objections: 1/ it should be limited to those significant in significant works included in WP, and this is an editing problem, for the article talk page. We do not delete all articles with some erroneous content. 2/ If there are some not included, add them. 3/If there are thousands, it shows why we need the list. 4/Some of the entries have context & the others can have the appropriate line added. 5/ Lists are navigational devices & do not have to repeat the sourcing of the article, or nobody could ever make a list. If the articles dont justify the listing, edit them. 6/ judging my the comments, some people dont think lists appropriate content, some people dont think things in faction appropriate content--and for all I know, some people may not think restaurants appropriate content. None of these are policy. DGG (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- 1) If it is limited to only those notable enough for Misplaced Pages entries then it is completely duplicative of the category. 2) Adding more non-notable restaurants to an already indiscriminate list only makes the list more indiscriminate. 3) If there are thousands of non-notable fictional restaurants that will never ever become notable, it shows why we don't need a list. 4) Adding internal fictional "context" does not make the list any less a conglomeration of unassociated items. 5) This list serves no navigational purpose as its contents are not and in the vast overwhelming majority of cases will never be notable enough to sustain independent articles, and even if they somehow did become notable enough to sustain articles this list would still be nothing more than a linkfarm. 6) This last gripe is nothing but your usual "I like everything, everything should be kept despite its utter lack of encyclopedic content" stuff that you haul out in in almost every one of these debates. It is a deliberate mischaracterization of the content of other editors' comments and opinions and does not address the policy and guideline violations that have been brought up. Otto4711 13:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- rejoinders 1 & 2 contradict each other: if it contains the same items it would be redundant, if it contains more it would be indiscriminate, and I suppose if it contained fewer it would be incomplete. Thus we can delete every such list. That's not WP policy, and amounts to a outright refusal to follow either the letter or the spirit of WP:LIST. DGG (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Neither the letter nor the spirit of the guideline WP:LIST trump the policy WP:NOT. A compilation of every fictional restaurant that appeared in any single film or single television episode is clearly a directory of loosely associated topics. The things on this list have nothing in common. Otto4711 04:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Yeshivish 04:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)sockpuppet GRBerry 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)- Delete. There are a few notable fictional restaurants, like Sponge Bob Square Pants Krusty Krab and that place on Northern Exposure (which isn't listed), but including every dive ever mentioned in passing is ridiculous. A category makes more sense. Clarityfiend 06:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- delete nothing notable in here, sorry. Is just a random and arbitrary collection of stuff.JJJ999 08:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. This list will never be complete and serves hardly any encyclopedic purpose that I can think of. – sgeureka 11:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I said above there are hundreds of thousands, not thousands, of fictional restaurants. This is conservativeThere have been millions of fictional books written in the world, and additionally millions of movies, TV and radio dramatic episodes. And in most of them, fictional restaurants are mentioned, sometimes several per novel or story or TV episode. Someone's choice of a few is an arbitrary and indiscriminate list. A complete list would be ludicrous and useless. Edison 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)