Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crab juice

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. WjBscribe 23:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crab juice

Crab juice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pure Simpsons cruft, it plays a minor role in one episode and the page says nothing that can't be said on the page for The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, so its own page really isn't needed. There is no allegation of real world context. At the very least it should be merged, since it only appeared in one episode, there is only one place it could link to. Scorpion 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page because it appears in the same episode and is also cruft :

Khlav Kalash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Please see "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" [1] which says: - "Example: Delete as cruft... Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted."

• Delete all - it's a throw-away gag from one episode of the Simpsons, which could easily be covered here" The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. Hilariously well-sourced, though. --Haemo 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

REASONS TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE:

• Deleting it would reduce WP's list of Fictional beverages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_beverages)
• "Scorpion" stated it "plays a minor role" and "isn't needed". Wikipedia policy says: Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:N)
• Deleting the article is in opposition to Wikipedia philosophy and goal. Wiki's goal is stated as follows: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles. The references cited back up the goal to have a corresponding article in "every other general purpose encyclopedia"
• Deleting would lose "actual use" reference, Prima Taste Singapore Chilli Crab Gekritzl 23:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Even Haemo said "Hilariously well-sourced" - more supporting reasons to keep the article. Gekritzl 23:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And why is it notable? Because it appeared for a half a minute in a single episode? You are simply quoting policy, not explaining how it applies to this article. -- Scorpion 23:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Wikipedia policy says that notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". ([2]). Gekritzl 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Reply
  • First of all, you can keep Crab juice on that list, even if the article gets deleted. Crab juice is still a fictional beverage, even if it doesn't have an article.
  • Secondly, notability also means that an items will have multiple, non-trivial, third party references discussing it. This does not - it's no "Bond Martini", after all.
  • Thirdly, show me a single general purpose encyclopedia which has an article on Crab Juice.
  • Finally, the "actual use" reference doesn't even refer to Crab Juice, as explained the article. Crab Juice is a fictional beverage - the crab stock used in cooking is not a beverage at all. You claimed earlier it was a beverage? Is it?
• None of your comments even remotely validate keeping this article. --Haemo 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I said hilariously well sourced because it has lots of really bad sources. Quantity of sources is not a substitue for quality, and five of the eight trivial references there don't even refer to the subject of the article in question. Construing my comment as some kind of rational for keeping it is absurd in total. One of the remaining three doesn't even support the claim it makes, and the remaining two are not reliable --Haemo 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletion_policy). First, it says "When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." Nowhere does it say that notability also means that it must have "multiple" references; nor "non-trivial" references. Let's work to build WP, even when the subject is one of trivia -- do you think we should delete all articles relating to trivial matters? According to this criteria, most of the content on The Simpsons should be deleted. Moreover, there is no WP criteria for whether an article is "needed". Gekritzl 00:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply - Yes, but apparently there is not doubt here. And yes, I do think we should delete all articles relating to trivial, non-notable material. Oh, and quoting from WP:NOTE:

"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." The depth of coverage of the subject by the sources should be considered in determining the number of sources needed. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view and is credible. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic is more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Further definition of this concept is provided at the notability guideline.

So, I would suggest you re-read the standards in question. --Haemo 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks, Jonathan and Brian. I have more references, I'll add them. Then, please take a look and see what you think. - Michael (Gekritzl 00:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Reply - Sure thing! --Haemo 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete article presents no meaningful real world context as required by WP:FICT. Unlikely to rewrite article to do so. Jay32183 00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Fellow Wikipedians: six more references have been added. Your opinions are welcomed. You can guess my vote: KEEP! Gekritzl 01:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: None of the "cultural references" you added are overly notable. A lot of Simpsons characters and items are mentioned in newspaper articles. Now, if a company actually started manufacturing Crab Juice BECAUSE of the episode, THEN it would be notable. -- Scorpion 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Brian - The New York Times and Virginia Law Weekly mean nothing to you? And now you use the term "overly notable"? I don't see that criteria in WP. It DEFINITELY doesn't require a company to actually start manufacturing Crab Juice to make this subject notable! Again, let's work to build this body of knowledge, not knock it down. - Michael Gekritzl 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why can't a small section be added to the episode page? -- Scorpion 01:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Why can't we just keep the Crab Juice and Khlav Kalash articles as they are? Both are well researched, well cited, with a variety of related information, and both being wiki-linked from several other WP articles. Gekritzl 01:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Three each is not "several". -- Scorpion 02:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Hi Brian - I very much respect your input here at WP. Yes, "Three" is indeed "several". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/several –adjective 1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.

• • P.S. Why delete this article? How does this help the WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About) project? Please explain.

• Keep. Seems notable, if marginally so. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge either to the episode article, or one on Simpsons products in general. Coverage of crab juice seems reasonable. But its own article? Tries to take minor content too far. FrozenPurpleCube 03:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - okay, I see you've added 4 new sources. Two are print, and so I can't verify them right away. I'll have to head up to the University to verify them, unless someone else has a source. The other two are not WP:RS - one's a blog, and the other is user-submitted reviews. However, if the two print ones check out, I'll change my !vote to keep. --Haemo 05:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Actually, I added six more sources (five under "Cultural References" plus the Wikiquote). I hope I can spare you the chore of heading to the University library, as I have found links for the two sources in print. NYT: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A12FC3A5F0C768EDDA80994D9404482&showabstract=1 and Virginia Law Weekly: http://www.lawweekly.org/pdf_archives/040403.pdf Gekritzl 13:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge - If 'crab juice' is a real substance which is referenced in a recipe, the article should be relevant to the REAL WORLD product. Any Simpsons mention should be secondary under a 'cultural references' type section. The recipe in this article seems to just be an author's bid to try and make a minor Simpsons one-off mention "legitimate" by saying "hey look, it exists". But as mentioned, this info could be covered quite easily in the episode article. Almost everything in this article relates to both Crab juice and Khlav Kalash. If both were combined in the episode's article, there'd be half as much to read, and it would give the episode article some nice cultural references, which always improves an article. the Kalash article has a trivia points section, which, if I recall correctly, wikipedia frowns upon. The Kalash article is LITERALLY: KK is a fictional food mentioned in [this episode]. Homer eats it and it tastes bad. It's mentioned again in one other episode. There's a band named after it. This is NOT noteworthy/ notable. Furthermore, it's just explaining a joke. The article lists 4 facts:

1. KK is a fictional food from the aforementioned Simpsons episode (the slavic origin in both articles is arguably original research)
2. Homer buys a stick of KK in the episode which he describes as tasting awful (the asking for a drink is not really relevant, and probably is just a way for the author to add legitimacy to the crab juice article).
3. It's mentioned again in another episode
4. An unnoteworthy band named itself after KK

"An unnoteworthy band" - completely subjective and not relevant; fans of the band Khlav Kalash would disagree with you. 71.127.150.130 19:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not subjective. The band does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion of a band. If a page were created it would easily be deleted under A7. Jay32183 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The first fact is covered if this is merged into the episode article, leaving 3 facts. I argue that a merge is notably sufficient (crab juice and KK will still redirect to the Ep article, which could obviously have subtitles if someone wants to do that in a merge.

I should also note that the ONLY facts in the Crab Juice article that are actually about crab juice is that it's a fictional drink from the aforementioned episode, and that Homer bought several from a KK dealer in NYC. Everything else is episode synopsis and tells you nothing about crab juice itself. The cultural references can easily be merged with the Ep article. TheHYPO 08:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, smerge to the episode article- the print references. Not the stuff referenced to other wikis and user-generated material. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Simpsons trivia

RESPONSE: Please see: [3] Example: Delete ... This is probably the worst kind of argument that can be made in a deletion debate because, well, it isn't an argument. As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature is almost certainly not going to be considered by the admin making the final decision, and changing "Keep" to "Strong keep" will not make it any more relevant. Try to present actual reasons as to why the article/template/category/whatever should be kept/deleted, and try to make sure it's an argument based on the right reasons... Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse bunch and as such pretty much everything is hated by some editor somewhere. Hating a music style is no reason to argue that an article on a band who play that style of music (providing they meet the relevant verifiability and source criteria) should be deleted, as music tastes are incredibly subjective and one person's dirge is another person's symphony. The same applies to any issue of personal preference; some editors hate trivia, but what constitutes trivia is a subjective opinion and as things stand there's no concrete policy setting down what is and is not trivial, nor is there a policy stating that trivia should be deleted. "

• Comment - okay, again, the sources for this article are still not any good. Let's go through them, piece by piece:

1. - "List of neologisms on The Simpsons" - this reference links to a Wiki, which is not a WP:RS, and actually should not be included in any encyclopedia article as a reference.
2. - "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson at IMDB" - again, this links to a list of quotes from IMDB, which has no editorial oversight, and is editable by anyone. This is also not a WP:RS, and should be be included as a reference to the article.
3. - "AllExperts" - yet another cite which is not a WP:RS, and also fails to either assert, or support, the notability of crab juice outside of the episode.
4. - "Homer's Odyssey", New York Times - the only reference to crab juice in this article, which is a letter to the editor, is a one-line throwaway reference. It definitely does not support, or asset, the notability of crab juice.
5. - "The Dolphin Who Cried 'Mine'" - this article is a short fictional story and doesn't even refer to crab juice in any meaningful context with respect to the Simpsons. It definitely doesn't support, or assert, the notability of crab juice.
6. - "Double Review: Crab Udon and Crab Shumai " - this is a self-published blog, and thus is also not a WP:RS. It also does not assert notability of crab juice.
7. - "Restaurant review, Aristo , Torrance, CA " - this is a user-submitted review of a restaurant, and thus is not a WP:RS, either. It also does not assert notability of crab juice.
8. - "Mountain Dew" - this is a link to another Wiki, and thus is definitely not a WP:RS.
9. "Chow Times - Prima Taste Singapore Chilli Crab recipe" - this a recipe which refers to crab juice as crab stock. It has absolutely no relation to the topic in the article, whatsoever.
10. "My eCitizen - Prima Taste Singapore Chilli Crab recipe" - see the above.
11. The remaining three references are all internal to Wikipedia, and thus are not WP:RS.

• So, as we can see, there are literally zero WP:RS which either assert, or support, the notability of this topic. Furthermore, most of these references should be deleted per WP:ATT, since they don't meet standards, anyways. --Haemo 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the assessment of all of those sources and stand by my "delete" for having no meaningful real world context. Jay32183 03:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Both terms (Crab Juice, Khlav Kalash) are in use, in print -- Virginia Law Weekly, New York Times, more. Meets WP criteria for "notable" and enough content to warrant their own articles (don't merge back to "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson"). Pay no attention to the Deletion Gestapo, who seem to think there is no place for trivia on WP. Lib0man 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - that the term is used is not disputed, but there aren't articles about the terms, only article using the term. -- Whpq 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Note - WP says "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject" -- it doesn't say articles about the term are necessary. 71.127.150.130 18:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Note the word "subject" in that sentence quoted. That indicates that the articles should be about and not just simply use term crab juice.

• Comment - no kidding. It's ridiculous to claim that the Virgina Law Weekly record has anything to do with the topic of the article, and the other one is just a letter to the editor. It isn't about Crab Juice at all! It just mentions it - that's the very definition of a "trivial mention" - something which is specifically disallowed by WP:NOTE. --Haemo 20:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge - reading Wiki guides, most point toward merging (both Khlav Kalash and Crab Juice) into "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" 71.127.150.130 19:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with the Merge. I don't think that we need an article for crab juice. Whats more, there are now 2 refrences to a Singaporean Chilli Crab recipie. What's that gotta do with a fictional drink?GavinTing 15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge Does not require their own articles unless they become a major running feature. Can easily be integrated within the main episode articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge both articles into The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson. That some gag on a very popular TV show got a little coverage doesn't mean it requires a separate Wikipedia article. A merge would save all relevant info & consolidate episode information. If either becomes a running feature, it may be reasonable to separate into a new article. — Scientizzle 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Both Khlav Kalash and crab juice are important cultural terms for which there is not enough WP:RS material to write an attributable article on either topic. Thus, the topics do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines and cannot meet Wikipedia article policy standards. -- Jreferee 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both Yes, I've seen the episode. Yes, it was a funny bit. No, it's not notable enough to warrant its own article here. Also, Unencyclopedia is not a "reliable source" by any means, and should not be considered a reference. Pertinent info appears to already have been merged. Caknuck 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge both: Casual mentions in a single ep? C'mon. This takes inclusionism to the point of dementia. What's the entire basis for this article? Homer drinks a few cans of "Crab juice" in a restaurant, in one ep and one alone. Nothing more about this is known, nothing more is knowable. This is worthy of desperately combing the Internet for some sources, any sources, no matter how trivial or tenuous? Is there some monetary prize for the most Simpsons-related edits on Wikipedia or something?  RGTraynor  13:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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.