Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunder Mifflin

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. Notability is indeed not inherited, hence the mass re-direction or deletion of dozens of unsourced stubs; but that doesn't mean that a sub-article is automatically non-notable. This is quite well sourced and as pointed out below, merging back into the main article would make that one unwieldy. Black Kite 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dunder Mifflin

Dunder Mifflin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article describes a non-notable fictional company in a notable show. While the show is popular in the US, notability does not confer to the company--any references avialable are in-universe and fictional, and the company doesn't have influence on markets, advertising, technology, or trends in their industry.

Tagged for notability for a couple months without improvement. Marked as OR for six months without imrpovement. Listing for AfD after {{prod}} disputed. Mikeblas (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know that strictly speaking this isn't a fictional character). -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to The Office (U.S. TV series), as per WP:FICTION. No claim of real world notability in article, but it is a likely search term.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would be fine with a merge to the main article and redirect. All the same, Dunder Mifflin is more central to the plot of The Office than, say, the Dharma Initiative is to Lost, yet I think consensus would clearly be in favor of keeping the Dharma article. I understand that comparing one Wikipedia article to another isn't a good argument for keeping or deleting this article. However, I might argue that 413,000 Google hits does have some bearing on the notability of Dunder Mifflin. Then again, this article clearly contains a lot of original research and zero references. Bah, I dunno. I suppose I'm sticking with merge and redirect unless someone wants to do the legwork to find sources. · jersyko talk 15:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I'm satisfied with the progress being made. Keep. · jersyko talk 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd be for merging if the material was viable -- that is, if it wasn't OR. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I hardly think the whole article is OR. Most of the material is sourced from the show, so while it doesn't have a citation it's not really original resource. At least no more so than the plot summary of a movie or book. Tomdobb (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion page for the article you can see the difficulty in building an NPOV article based on a single, primary source. For example, if you look at the section entitled "Regional Manager salary estimate removal", the decision to remove an item on the main article is based on what the editor thinks (that the number in the article is incorrect). They talk of things being "hinted at" in the show. Once an editor steps past the point of reitteration of blatantly clear portions of the plot they fall into this type of delving for facts. These "facts" are then distorted through the lens of an editor's own interpritation. This would clearly be OR. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The presence of OR in an article is not a valid reason to delete ... the article as a whole must be OR. All the same, I do see some stuff which I will be removing later as unsalvageable OR. A lot of the rest can be sourced to individual episodes where the claims were made. In the end I think we'll have an article half as long as the current one. Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Solid keep. I am currently working to keep the main article's FA status. WikiProject: The Office is currently being revived after almost of year of lying fallow. The show has given much information about Dunder Mifflin out that it warrants a separate article ... I cannot see the main article on the show absorbing everything here and retaining its featured status. With a little work, the OR-ish stuff could be trimmed out and references could be added. It is much more central to The Office than Fusion Cosmetics is to All My Children, and I can't see us deleting that one. According to the New York Times (source here) one popular T-short website named Dunder Mifflin the second best fictional brand after Duff Beer. I realize the article's in poor shape, and I wish I had the time to work on this as well, but frankly merging this would be like merging Starship Enterprise back into Star Trek because the former article was in poor shape. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum. I would also note this image and what the articles it's used in say. A fictional company notable enough that it was a given a banner in front of the city hall in the the city where it's set? I think this is notable; we just need an article that can better demonstrate that fact. Daniel Case (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Update. I have added some sources and discussion of its real-life notability to the article now. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As far as articles on fictitious places and companies go, this has to be one of the better candidates. It should be fairly easy to add enough references to establish notability, as Google has 1.6 million hits. —BradV 17:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The fact that Google has 1.6 million hits speaks only to the popularity of the show. And, as stated in WP:N, popularity is distinctly different from notability. Do the same search 5 years from now and I am sure you will not see anywhere near those kind of results. (Also, not to be picky, but your search only gives 474,000 hits, not 1.6 million). LeilaniLad (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, it's a central part of the U.S. version of The Office. I think this is an acceptable sub-article of The Office (U.S. TV series), which is a featured article. I would favor a merge over deletion, although merging this article as-is into The Office (U.S. TV series) could bring the quality of that article down. --Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, There are also sources listed at Google News[1] and Google Book[2] that could be used to improve the article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and improve, hopefully before the AfD debate times out. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Daniel Case. This clearly meets our guidelines. GlassCobra 22:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Solid Delete. While Dunder Miffilin may be very pertainant to the television show The Office, that does not mark it as notable in any long-term sense. Would an article on the radio staion WKRP outside of the show's main article be notable? Would we want a seperate article for Sugarbaker Designs outside of Designing Women? No. Even though they are central to a plot for a poplular show, they are most certainly not notable subject matter in and of themselves. If, as Daniel Case states above, it is not possible to merge this article in the main one without degrading it then this article should be deleted. LeilaniLad (talk) 01:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, then, I hate to make WP:ALLORNOTHING but you're invoking WP:OTHERSTUFF, and there's an awful lot you'd have to delete in Cat:Fictional companies if you said this article's subject was non-notable. I admit we don't have a separate article for Wernham Hogg but consider that there are several times as many episodes of the US version of the show then the British original and hence a lot more information the show's given out about the company (Consider that in the British version we never find out if there are any other branches beside Slough and Swinton, whereas we know there are several Dunder Mifflin branches in the Northeast and where. We know about the company's founders ... we even met one in an episode earlier this season. We've been to headquarters in New York City.

You cannot properly discuss The Office and its characters without discussing Dunder Mifflin, the company for which pretty much all of them work. It is as important to understanding the show as understanding Springfield is to The Simpsons. It is the show's setting even more than Scranton. And you have to discuss it at more length than you could within an article, because like Springfield a wealth of detail has been adduced about it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I was using these examples to demonstrate a point, there are not actually articles for the fictional companies I mentioned above. And I agree that there are many other articles on items of transitory interest related to fictional works that should be considered for deletion. The fact that there are non-notable articles on Wikipedia does not excuse this article from the requirements of WP:N. The pervasiveness of information garnered by the intense scrutiny of an item does not make it notable. If you examine anything for a long enough time you can produce reams of information, that does not make the item notable in a larger sense.

If discussion of Dunder Mifflin is required for any discussion of The Office, it should take place in the main article. If merging will degrade the quality of the main article, that begs the question of why. If everything in this article was pertinant and notable, merging into the main article should not cause any degridation of quality. The only reason I could see that it would cause issues with the main article is if it's inclusion would bring the main article into question under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As it says there, "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." I could certainly see that adding this volume of information on a single aspect of a fictional show's plot would bring the main article into question under this policy. So I ask, if the information in the Dunder Mifflin article is not sutable for inclusion in the main article, why is it sutable to stand as article on it's own? It certainly seems to me as if we are focusing on minutia here.

I pose the following question to those interested in this debate: Do you really think Scranton will have banners hanging in town stating that it is the home of Dunder Mifflin five years after the show is canceled? If your answer is no, then you would have to agree that the only reason this article is even being debated is because of a current popular trend, not that it has any kind of lasting notability. LeilaniLad (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you had mentioned only one fictional company, which to be technical should really be described as a fictional sole proprietorship. Again, your logic is uncertain. I think Dunder Mifflin is as integral to The Office as the Enterprise is to Star Trek, and I would neither merge nor delete the former article.

Your argument is primarily from abstract principle and seems to be more an exercise in constructing an argument for deletion because no one else here is making one, than a viable argument for deletion. It could be summed up as "if information about some aspect of a fictional universe cannot be dealt with in the main article, than it shouldn't be dealt with at all." We would have to get rid of a lot of articles about characters then.

To address your one point that reflects the instant article rather than an abstract category: Do I think Scranton will have banners hanging (and, I should say from personal experience, the company's logo splattered all over the main elevator shaft at Steamtown Mall, plus on the pedestrian bridge out front)? Hell yeah, given the tourism boost the show's given the city. After all, the Bull & Finch Pub is still living off Cheers memorabilia over a decade after that show was cancelled. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison to The Enterprise is spurious. The Enterprise was an entity in several television shows and movies, which it makes it a far more notable than a fictional entity in a single show. Also, all your arguments are again based on the idea that The Office will maintain signifigance for years to come. While this may be true, any such assumption on someone's part would not make it notable now.

Let's keep this within WP:N. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Here a source is strictly defined as a secondary source. This article contains no references. The television show itself is a primary source and, as I stated above, any inferences taken from a primary source can be considered OR. If you search for multiple secondary reliable sources for discussion of Dunder Mifflin as an entity seperate from the individual television show, you will find very few results. There is certaily a great deal of discussion on fan pages, but that is why the term "reliable" is added to the statement from WP:N above.

Again, I am not saying that the information in itself, if sourced, does not belong in Wikipedia. Rather, by failing to meet the criteria in WP:N the Dunder Mifflin article does not qualify to stand on its own. The reason I am pushing for deletion is due to your statement that a Featured Article could suffer if merged in situ. If you feel there is information that would benefit the main article, by all means source it and put it in there. As it stands, anyone who looks at this article and the criteria in WP:N would have to see that this subject does not qualify as notable on its own. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think your attempt to distinguish between the Enterprise and Dunder Mifflin is all that convincing (Would it change if the rumored spinoff happens? Seems to me that it would) The only reason you're here making this argument is not because I'm trying to save a featured article; it's because your prod got removed. If you need another example, look at Hogwarts ... you want to merge all that back into any one of the Harry Potter articles? And even "it's just one fictional company in one single show" doesn't wash, as the Dharma Initiative comment above notes (Lost has been on for maybe the same time (on top of my observation about Fusion Cosmetics. Go ahead and nominate that one, then, if you believe in applying WP:N this way. I really don't think information about the company belongs in the main article any more than details about the characters does. And I think I've added sources that demonstrate some real-world notability. You can't constantly keep saying that it fails WP:N and should be deleted; you may be firmly convinced of that (I've been there, I know it feels) but it fails WP:N only if there's a consensus here that it does, and it doesn't look like that's happening. It really seems to me like you're increasingly grasping at straws. (Oh, and here's U.S. News and World Report discussing it as if it were a real company. It isn't the whole article but it's non-trivial IMO) Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just one more note: we have a separate article on Deep Space Nine, the space station itself, as opposed to the series. That was the key setting of only one of the TV series, and barely appeared in anything else (the pilot episode of Voyager, one episode of TNG etc.). I would argue that it has analogous notability to this article. Daniel Case (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not repeating myself, I am responding to your statements individually. No matter what you think, I have no personal investment in this article per say. I am all for merging if you think that is possible. I realise you do have personal investment in it however, so am writing off your assumption of my motives to that. My previous statement was not strictly based on the single aspect, single show. It also mentioned signifigant coverage in reliable sources. You added two NBC pages marketing the show, as well as an NBC merchandise site. A single line in a single article from a reliable source is all that is left, which can hardly be considered "signifigant coverage".

You also keep attemting to defend this article by using WP:OTHERSTUFF, which ironically you accused me of at the begining of your responses. By pointing out other articles you are attempting to shift the focus away from the subject at hand, which is the notability of this article.

I only continue to post on this talk page to respond to your rebuttals. If you would be willing to simply "agree to disagree" we could leave our comments to stand on their own. LeilaniLad (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, given that you're the only person in this arguing for deletion in any event. Cheerio. Daniel Case (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak keep. It's very notable in the context of The Office, but notability is not inherited... I believe it is probably still a notable fictional organisation in its own right, but the article needs references to third-party coverage to prove it. Terraxos (talk) 05:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very strong keep. Well sourced article that clearly hurdles the notability benchmark. Ursasapien (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2008 (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.