Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morley (cigarette)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morley (cigarette)

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Google news shows only 1 passing mention for Morely Morley cigarette -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as subject is covered in reliable third party sources, including scholarly works [1] and specialty news sites [2], and real-world notability is expressed by the fictional brand showing up in so many varied and independent television, film, and game productions. - Dravecky (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment from WP:Notability "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, ... Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". None of the sources provided so far do anything other than mention the "brand" name in passing, thereby being nothing more than trivial coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Zap2It article is specifically about the character's smoking, the connection to the other show, and the brand of cigarettes. - Dravecky (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply to the reply if this "Horrible, horrible herbal cigarettes," says Marsters. "We smoke Morley's. We both smoke the same brand. We're the only two characters on TV that do." constitutes "directly addressing the subject in detail" to you, we have significantly different interpretations of "in detial". And it is hard for me to understand how you can claim this is a reliable source when it directly contradicts your claim of "the fictional brand showing up in so many ...productions" ("We're the only two...") -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The search was with the correct spelling [3], the entry above was a typo, now corrected. If google news is not a great method of finding reliable sources, using your other methods, can you produce some reliable sources? If some are found, I am willing to withdraw this nomination. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Subject has appeared in a wide variety of films, and as noted above, is referenced by independent sources, albeit not exclusively. Due to its prevalence, I posit that the subject is notable due to its recurrence and appearance in external sources. The guideline states that coverage should be more than trivial, but can be less than exclusive. I found that to be the case with this article. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm no expert in WP policy, but I don't see why Google News should be a standard for notability for fictional things. Oceanic Airlines gets two Google News hits in English (and two in Spanish), one of them from "NewTeeVee.com" and the other from a blog on the Washington Post. Similarly, look at other articles in Category:In-jokes; none of "Finder-Spyder", "Dopefish", "Franz Bibfeldt", or most of the other things listed there appear in Google News. Something can be notable for its pervasiveness, I would think. Tahnan (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Again the notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The mere appearance in a number of movies and TV shows does not equal "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." i.e. it has not been shown that anyone has considered the topic of "Morley cigarettes" as something worthy of writing about. The lack of Google news hits in and of itself is not proof of lack of notability, if other sources are provided showing notability. No sources have been forthcoming. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guidelines also state "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media." so while these may be largely primary sources, the large number of published works in which this fictional brand appears prominently also confers a degree of notability. Combined with the secondary sources, admittedly a small number at the present time, should prove at least a sufficient degree of notability, especially for a fictional object. - Dravecky (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in any of these appearances in other media has there been anything other than "trivial coverage"? And these appearances are all primary sources which a Wikipedia editor making some type of claim about them would be original research. Without a thrid party who has reviewed this multiple trivial appearances and decided they are noteworthy by writing about them, I dont think your arguement has left the gate that Morley meets Wikipedia notibility guidelines for articles.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy you cite clearly says "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary or secondary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Interpretation of a primary source would be original research but simply reporting the contents of a primary source does not constitute original research. In this case, the sheer volume of primary source works using this fictional brand makes its own case for a level of notability. - Dravecky (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before invoking WP:OR again, you should review the section about acceptable published sources and that they include "...fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs" so these uses of Morley cigarettes are in published works by third-parties unrelated to the original productions that popularized the fictional brand. I get that you don't like this article but it includes a mix of primary and secondary sources that go to both notability and verifiability. "Trivia" is an opinion, one to which you're entitled, but it's time to acknowledge consensus and move on. - Dravecky (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sources pointed to here provide only trivial coverage of what is itself a trivial topic. Revise entry at List_of_fictional_companies to broaden definition, and create a redirect there atop the redlink. Or, blah, just redirect it. But there's no reason for this (or many of the entries on that List of...) to be a standalone article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:56, 27 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Morley_(cigarette)&oldid=1068851375"