This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 June 10.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Delete - The concers of the nominator appears to only be theoretically addressed, as in, "somebody else will add the refs and clean it up." On top of that, a majority supported deleting this article with a few reccomending merge then delete. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To further clarify, my reference above to a majority was not my deciding factor in closing this AFD. The conerns addressed by the nominator is that it is just a trivia article full of orignial research. Even though attempts to rescue the article added reference, that does not overcome many of the concerns addresed by those with a delete or merge opinions. Based on the opinions expressed in this AFD, it appears that there is no consensus to keep the article, however to delete or merge it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza delivery in popular culture[edit]

Contested prod. A collection of unsourced trivia and related original research. Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 ^talk 22:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and there is an article on pizza delivery already. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it makes my head hurt, for all of the reasons stated above. Arkyan 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to pizza delivery. It is a notable theme plot, as per Futurama etc. The article has only been in existence for half an hour! I suspect there will be some 3rd party sources in books on Hollywood comedy etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whoa there. Isn't my vote self explanatory? I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - oh good god. An article to capture every time a pizza is delivered in a book, movie or TV show? Indiscriminate collection of useless trivia. Otto4711 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza_delivery#In_popular_culture and delete. Since this article was created by splitting out content, this article doesn't need to be kept for the GFDL, as it is an extremely unlikely search term. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just so everyone sees the kind of thing that happens here, one editor didn't think the content was notable enough in one article, so to fix the problem, the content was split out, and shortly thereafter it went to the chopping block at AfD. Rather than waste all that time, the article could have been trimmed down to only examples that predominantly feature the subject. It took maybe 5 minutes, and all I did was use the delete key and type a few words. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, oh GOD no. (created contrary to WP:TRIVIA and not based on sources that actually talk about the subject.) WillOakland (talk) 04:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did somebody order a...deletion (cue bad 70's-era music)? This will quickly become crufty and most of the items mentioned in the article are minor at best. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Too trivial for a standalone article, some of the more notable examples can be cited in the main article and also, of course, in pornography. (If you don't know what I mean, you're too young.) 23skidoo (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD delivery for I.C. Weiner! I'm not in favour of some of the past pop. cul. culls, but this takes the slice... Lugnuts (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in thirty minutes or less or it's free! I mean... really... Trusilver 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as encyclopedic, notable, interesting, verifiable, and unoriginal topic. Page is just a few days old, so Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Plus, trivia is encyclopedic. Even in a worst case scenario, I can't imagine why a merge and redirect without deletion would not be the route to take, but I see nothing to gain here from an outright deletion. By the way, pizza delivery is not merely "refeenced" in films, but is even the outright subject of some films, such as this one and this. In the case of other films, use of pizza delivery has been regarded by critics as "overly integrated product placement".See Heather Boerner, "Review of R.L. Stine's Haunting House: Don't Think About: Tween-friendly, ad-happy Halloween fright fest," Common Sense Media. See also Michele Cheplic, "Pizza Hut's Youngest and Most Famous Delivery Person... Maybe," Popular Culture Blog on families.com (13 Nov 2007). Also note from the New York Times: "Reviews/Film; A Youth's Salty Specialty On a Pizza-Delivery Route." See also The Pizza Guy Movie. Note all of these films of course have reviews and therefore coverage in secondary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pizza delivery. It is customary on Wikipedia to have popular culture sections within the main article unless doing so makes the article too long. The Pizza delivery article is not too long at the present. Subarticles are the way to go only when the main article cannot handle them for one reason or another. Sebwite (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge back if it turns out to be short enough--it doesnt take afd for that. Personally, I think it will overbalance the article if merged, but we can discuss that on the talk page. The use of this cultural theme is significant--or at least the creative artists who have used it seem to think so. The NYT article GRC found is at any rate the secondary source that has often been demanded for these type of articles. DGG (talk) 08:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already merged what I believe to be the appropriate content. If you think we should add more, feel free to do, but I think this AfD can be closed at this point. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article as re-written by GRC in the last couple of days is in every way superior to to article that was nominated. The article everyone disparaged above is gone by virtue of the rewrite, and the rewritten article should not be confused with it or deleted in its place. Re-list the new article if you must; I doubt it'd get the same negative response that the earlier article did.--Father Goose (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think the information should be in the pizza delivery article, which is now shorter than this one. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps there is actually more to say here there are probably more sources. DGG (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent improvement. The newly-added refs show coverage from credible sources and verify notability needed for a detailed article, as opposed to a section in another (already long) article. A merge back to Pizza delivery won't be in line with WP:LENGTH. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:26, 10 June 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.