Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KFC Commercial Controversy

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. There is a clear consensus here (mercifully, because these NOTNEWS AfDs rarely produce clear outcomes) that there is insufficiently lasting coverage or impact associated with this event to transcend NOTNEWS. Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KFC Commercial Controversy

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:DEL. Non notable so-called "controversy" apparently exacerbated by Australian internet trolls and vagabonds (including the fella who wrote this ridiculous article). Fail to meet notability guideline. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, except from blogs and quips from The Young Turks. Should be an uncontroversial deletion.Eachlucky (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. VER Tott 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received coverage around the world, for example The Age, The Guardian and The Huffington Post. VER Tott 15:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I reckon the question is whether this is a "non-notable so-called 'controversy'" per nom or whether there has been protracted coverage and comment about the ad. How has Wikipedia dealt with similar matters in the past? No opinion one way or the other as to inclusion-worthiness at this point. I suspect a merge to some sort of hypothetical Racism in advertising article would be the best outcome. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or merge per WP:NOTNEWS. Note that the nominator's fourth edit was to nominate this article for deletion. Possible merge target: Criticism of advertising#Socio-cultural aspects: sexism: discrimination and stereotyping. SnottyWong ^babble 17:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS article with an extremely silly tone, even going so far as to have a "impact on relations" as though this was an armed border skirmish or a nuclear test that broke some international treaty. Company runs dumb commercial locally, nobody cares, bloggers in another country whine about it, it gets pulled and still nobody cares. As the article even admits the whole thing was basically a misunderstanding due to misinterpreting another culture. For what it's worth, it's already detailed in a couple of sentences in the KFC article, giving this even less reason to exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS I agree with Starblind. Also as an American I found the entire "Impact on relations" section offensive. It's inappropriate (as well as ridiculous) and should be deleted from the article. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in a quote from the company referencing it to a major newspaper. This is an interesting and informative topic, which someone could actual learn from. I demonstrates how different cultures see things. Dream Focus 23:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per SnottyWong. Definitely WP:NOTNEWS comes into play. -DJSasso (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massively blown-out-of-proportion wikinews.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KFC. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:NOTNEWS. Poorly written, poorly referenced and very minor news. Certainly wouldn't pass WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not News. Tie Oh Cruise (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received coverage in some of the French press (Rue 89, Le Nouvel Observateur, Le Post (part of Le Monde)) DeansFA (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All the Keepers seem to be running the argument "appears in newspapers, therefore passes GNG". I'd remind them that the GNG is a necessary but insufficient basis for article creation - articles must also not violate anything in WP:NOT. From WP:NOTNEWS: "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Consider the enduring notability of this "controversy" - are we still going to be talking about this in ten years time? Not the slightest chance.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they call them "inclusionists". Tarc (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. controversial ads appear all the time. something has to be more noteworthy than that. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill news blip is not worthy of an encyclopedia article. At best, worth a 1-2 line mention is a List of controversial ads, if someone was so inclined to create it. Tarc (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This incident received significant coverage in international press. VERTott points out some sources quickly, so the nomination is factually incorrect on that point. Arguments I see favoring deletion just think its a dumb controversy, but everything is a dumb controversy unless someone dies or gets hurt. I typically point out in AfDs like this that past events like this are recorded in wikipedia everywhere, e.g., 1981's Ketchup as a vegetable controversy, the 1835 Great Moon Hoax, 2010 United States tomato shortage, etc. Some of these do get zapped but the articles inevitably come back later if the event did get worldwide coverage (indeed, I swear this is the 2nd time I've seen an article on this!) So unless deletion really benefits the project, its a worthless exercise.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS LibStar (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, LibStar, my point is a valid use of OTHERSTUFF, " identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though, "ketchup is a vegetable" still receives coverage, mentions, and references to this day, and the Moon hoax was written about by Asimov and others over 150 years after the fact. The tomato shortage article is beyond retarded, and should be sent off for an AfD as well. The project would be benefited by deletion because it is one more "gee, that was interesting...for a day" article gets kicked to the trash heap. An encyclopedia is not a repository for those funny "local flavor" stories that they talk about at the end of the local news. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tomato article was kept in a recent AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes milowent, I can read. Yes another case of "keep it's in many sources!" verbal diarrhea that completely ignores WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep like milowent says i think this will be of interest also years from now even though others dont Aisha9152 (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSINTERESTING does not actually address concerns raised by either the nominator or those who have weighed in to delete. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i said it will be of interest meaning notable interest in the future i did not say its interesting Aisha9152 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've argued that it's not notable now. To argue that it will become so in future is drawing a pretty long bow.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is everyone misquoting me im saying its notable now and will be notable in the future. Aisha9152 (talk) 07:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons usually help, rather than vague "keep it's notable" hand-waving. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2010 (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.