Talk:List of fictional companies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

-

Re "companies" a la Jefferson Institute and Hammond Foundation -- I was going to include these, but I would advocate creating a List of fictional institutions to include non-profit organizations (and maybe also government agencies and prisons, etc.) like those two. KeithTyler 03:11, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

About the Star Trek companies - later shows and more "official" tech manuals have made "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" pretty much obsolete as a reference work. It seems to me that if we list these companies, we might as well list every company ever mentioned in any Star Trek novel. (In fairness, that might very well fit in with the function of this page, but it would become unwieldy awfully fast.) Brecchie 05:58, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

If need be, a separate article on companies in Star Trek can be created. -Sean Curtin 05:26, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree, Utopia Planitia is a facility run by the federation and while it's a company in terms of a group of people it's not a company in terms of monies and would better be called an institution.

WHO TOOK OUT THE TRADE FEDERATION!?

Whoever you are: I can find no evidence that the Trade Federation is a company, any more than NAFTA or the European Union is a company. Therefore it doesn't belong here. I said as much in my edit comments. -- KeithTyler

What makes you think the Trade Federation isn't a company?! It isn't a government! But they are so powerful, they have a voice in the Galactic Senate! They are a company! They are a trading company, who has a military! And also, we don't need an article on companies in Star Trek. They probably don't exist, since there is no money.

I can't help you with your anxiety issues, but I put Trade Federation in List of fictional institutions under Inter-Political Alliances, where it belongs. --KeithTyler 03:11, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

OKAY! Fine, but I still think the Trade Federation is a company. I think it was a good idea to reorganize this page. But, for military and defence, should we have divide the page to "kinds of weapons"? (ex.-nuclear, chemical, bio, etc.)-B-101

Contents

[edit] Vandelay Industries

This doesn't exist, not even in Seinfeld. It's a company George made up to extend his unemployment benefits. So, it's a fictional fictional company? OW, I SPRAINED MY BRAIN!!! Brithgob 22:24, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it should be listed as a front? -- Lampbane 17:22, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural?

It seems there are enough companies to warrant a supernatural/magical services section. But where then, do we put Angel Investigations, which is currently under investigations but deals with demons and vampires and so on?

Its primary function is "investigation" rather than casting spells and so forth, and IMHO shuold remain where it is. -Sean Curtin 23:50, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SETEC Astronomy

I removed SETEC Astronomy (Sneakers) from the list, since it was a project between the Coolidge Institute and the National Security Agency, rather than a company.

Anville 18:43, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page too big

WARNING: This page is 34 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB.

Any suggestions on how to best break down this page into sub-pages? I would suggest perhaps moving the Retailers section to List of fictional retailers. Or should shows with lots of entries be broken out into their own lists? (i.e., List of fictional companies from The Simpsons) Or both? MakeRocketGoNow 20:45, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would have suggested corporations vs. stores, at least where there is a distinct difference (e.g. Initech = corporation, Flingers = store. ZikZak = both, but mostly corporation). So yes, pulling out retailers would be the same thing. After all, it is the largest section, accounting for over one third of the page. I think that would head off the question of demerging by series. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 21:15, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
I think something like List of fictional franchises could also be spun off, much like the List of fictional brands has already done.--YoungFreud 08:06, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My additions today

From Fake Products and the Movies That Loved Them By STUART ELLIOTT New York Times January 9, 2006[1] Gzuckier 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westar?

What's this from? Reverted it awhile back because there was no source, but Captain Wes added a bunch more to references to Westar Aerospace Research Ltd.. I've gone ahead and started a discussion on that page, but considering there's no reference to an external source, like a film, book, comic, or whatever, I am thinking it might be a vanity project.--YoungFreud 14:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesir

The game's not exactly clear what category it should go in, but Max Payne's Aesir produces and distributes a drug, so I put it into bio. --71.240.31.246 11:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This cannot be allowed to be an arbitrary listing of any and all fictional companies. Such a list is potentially infinite and thus, not beneficial. There must be some criteria for what does and does not belong in this list or it will eventually be deleted. I did a cleanup removing all companies that did not claim to have their own article and all redlinks that appeared unworthy of an article (which happened to be all of them). You're welcome to propose an alternative criteria, or argue the inclusion of specific exceptions to my criteria, but the point is, there needs to be something. -Verdatum (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A company that has its own article can be put in a category. What you've done is make this list irrelevant. I was going to vote against deletion, but because you have made this list unnecessary I'm going to vote for deletion. See my comment to this effect in the AfD vote. — Val42 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to that. The list adds a little more than can be gained from a single category, as it divides it into subcategories, and gives reference to the signifigance or origin of the company. It also allows the addition of redlinks for potentially viable articles that simply do not yet exist, or companies that are notable enough to have a reference that claims its notability, but don't have sufficient content to warrant an article. Also allows companies that exist as a subsection within an article of a different name. But yeah, I generally prefer categories over lists myself. -Verdatum (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
As I was editing my vote, I checked out how long since the previous deletion nomination. It has only been three and a half months since the previous deletion discussion, so by personal policy, I voted against it because it has been less than six months since the last nomination. However, that went over like a lead balloon last time I used it, so I found Wikipedia policy to support my position in the Wikipedia deletion policy. I voted to keep it, for now.
But at the next deletion (assuming that six months have passed), if the same criteria is used for inclusion in this list, I will vote for deletion for the reasons stated above. I (generally) liked this list the way it was, but it needed to be cleaned up. Let's work out some criteria for inclusion in this list and some way to organize the list. There are some criteria proposed in the deletion discussion. I'll let those who want to keep this article more than I do do the work. In a few days, once I get caught up with some other things, I may come back and propose some of my own criteria, if no one else does it. — Val42 (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
So yeah, I've been maintaining this page for a couple months now, and I've decided to unwatch the page and wash my hands of it. Few people have interest in creating or maintaining a well-formed article on this subject, they mostly want to add companies that they are appalled aren't mentioned. I have no idea on how to improve this, especially considering I believe it to be a rather rediculous topic for a list article anyway. If someone decides to AfD this in the future, I will very likely argue for deletion. I won't undo changes here anymore. -Verdatum (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SavMart

I've reverted this addition at least 3 times now (over the course of a couple months). According to the current selection criteria, entries must be notable and notability has not been established for this fictional company (It showed up in the movie One Hour Photo, but that alone is insufficient to show notability) This could include a wikilink, a section link, or just citing a decent independent reference. Alternatively, anyone is welcome to propose an alternative selection criteria. I personally decided upon the current one to save the article from AFD, and becuase I couldn't think of anything better to keep the list from becoming infinitely long. It is by no means set in stone. -Verdatum (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deon International

The involvment of this company was part of several major plots in the final season of seaQuest DSV. What you've done is turn this into more of a category than a article. I'd say this is for notable companies that are still to small to warrant a full page of their own. Dr. Stantz (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My humble apologies, I reverted your change before discussing on the talk page (I'll unrevert it in a moment) (you already reverted my revert, thanks). I missed the edit on my watchlist. I agree, this page is an excellent place for notable fictional companies that do not yet have infor information to warrant a full article of their own. However, without an article of it's own, an entry should have a reference or other content that establishes it's notability conforming to WP:N. I realize WP:N pertains to articles, not content; but because of the current selection criteria, the content of this article uses the same standard. So If a reference can be found that establishes notability outside of the fictional universe, then it belongs here. Alternatively, you can suggest an alternate selection criteria, so that people know what does and does not belong on this list. -Verdatum (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self References

Per the edit comment, the Selection Criteria was removed from the article because it violates WP:ASR. I agree, depending on specific wording, it potentially does (the previous revision did). However, I was attempting to provide a selection criteria in accordance with the example in WP:SAL. It almost seems as though there is a bit of a conflict in the guidelines. I think it is still vitally important to explicitly include the selection criteria in the article. Perhaps the wording can be improved instead of removing it entirely. Comments? -Verdatum (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)