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 substantial majority of participants that voiced "delete" opinions argued in essence that this list violates our policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if such information is verifiable and may pertain to notable subjects. They further note that the topic of this article, pizza delivery as a distinct cultural topic, is not covered as such in any depth in any reliable sources. Instead, they contend, it amounts to synthetic original research to construct such an article around various observations of pizza delivery in media and around sources that discuss media featuring pizza delivery. These arguments are persuasive. The "keep" opinions are not, or at least not to an extent that they make me doubt that we have an informed "delete" consensus. They point to reliable sources that do cover in detail specific media products that feature pizza delivery, but they do not seriously address the argument that is most important with respect to WP:NOR: that (as one contributor put it) "there are no sources covering the subject of pizza delivery in popular culture as a whole", and that as such an article with this title has little prospect of not being original research.  Sandstein  22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza delivery in popular culture[edit]

Pizza delivery in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The previous AfD, which was closed as delete. Given some improvements of the article during the discussion, a deletion review concluded that listing here for further discussion was appropriate. This is a procedural nomination; no opinion on my part. Tikiwont (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pizza delivery. I've never had a problem with having a well-cited "in popular culture" section in articles, especially one on a topic like pizza delivery, which basically is popular culture (we don't have an article on topsoil delivery, but we probably should have one on telegram delivery). But there is no need to have a stand-alone pizza delivery in popular culture article when there is a suitable place to merge it to; the not overlong parent article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While the "improvements" have addressed some of the verifiability and original research problems that lead to this articles initial AfD deletion, no amount of sourcing will be able to overcome the problem that a list of every mention of pizza delivery made in a book, television show, or movie is an unbounded list of unimportant connective trivia. All useful information, such as the use of pizza delivery as a stag film MacGuffin, has already been merged back into the appropriate parent article. --Allen3 ^talk 18:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 18:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pizza delivery, per precedent in many other articles. No reason for this to stand alone. Enigma ^message 19:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the vast majority of the article, which is original research, prior to merge, please. Corvus cornix_talk 23:31, 17 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! 00:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pizza Delivery; encyclopedicity would be better preserved in the article Sceptre ^(talk) 00:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What a huge mess. This article was split from Pizza delivery, as a list of random times someone delivers a pizza in a fictional work. That got sent to AFD, and people tried to save the article with some sourced, more-general prose about the role of pizza delivery in fiction (everyman job, porno cliche, etc.) That prose gets merged back to pizza delivery, and the first AFD gets closed as delete since this article didn't have anything of value that isn't in the parent article. The first AFD goes to DRV, and we end up back here.
  At this point, we might as well just redirect this to pizza delivery, since anything of value has already been merged there and any hypothetical improvements to this article could just go there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Simple regurgitation of anchovies and plot summary. No citations to a variety of reliable sources commenting on pizza delivery as a plot device, its development across genres and media, or anything else to offer an encyclopedic treatment. --EEMIV (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what about "commenting on pizza delivery as a plot device, its development across genres and media"? --EEMIV (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple reliable sources have been added to this encyclopedic article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as an obviously notable theme,based on the notable works which have used them. That's enough to justify an article--the use of a theme in a significant way in multiple notable works. GRC's refs are to the point. As A Man in Black notes, this is not a question of where to put the material, its a question of people attempting to remove the material altogether, whether as part of an article or elsewhere. The idea that in popular culture material is not encyclopedic has been rejected long ago. What someone above called "unimportant connective trivia" is actualy the thematic basis out of which works of fiction are constructed. Classic pictures of minor disasters do not add to the logic of the discussion. I don;t want to be the one to remove it. Guess it shows there are no words that can give a adequate argument for deletion. New way to win Afd--whichever side can find the most appropriate picture. DGG (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really justify a separate article; all this has that pizza delivery doesn't is every single time a pizza delivery guy or a delivered pizza or a pizza delivery chain appears in a fictional work. We don't need that.

  As for the train wreck, that's the godawful process mess here; nothing good ever, ever comes from "procedural relist". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Using a Reductio ad absurdum argument ("every single time a pizza delivery" [is made]) actually weakens the argument, not strengthens it. All I have to do is find one delivery not included and the argument logically collapses. — Becksguy (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The current scope of the article is "every time a pizza delivery guy or a delivered pizza or a pizza delivery chain appears in a fictional work." No, no list of this sort can ever be completely complete; that only makes this article weaker. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Pizza delivery as that article already has a section on this subject. Either way cleanup and discussion of real world impact should be part of the article/section. It shouldn't be basically a list disguised as an article. Heck given that I'd think a referenced list with short sentences is probably a better way to go. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources that discuss the use of pizza delivery in popular culture. The article is just a collection of "this TV show had a pizza delivery guy" and so forth. If the theme of pizza delivery is notable, where are the sources that discuss the theme in any detail? What next - Acne-ridden teenagers in popular culture? Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliable sources? Check the LGRdC comment above with several reliable sources, check the highly improved article, also with RS. Is the New York Times no longer a reliable source? Voting delete due to no reliable sources makes no sense when the pertinent reliable sources are clearly there. — Becksguy (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my post before replying, it saves me having to reply to you. None of the sources deal with pizza delivery as a theme or plot device, the Times simply reviews a film called A Youth's Salty Specialty On a Pizza-Delivery Route, it doesn't do either of the aforementioned. You show me a reliable source that deals with pizza delivery as a plot device (and I do not mean reviews of Big Sausage Pizza) and compares its use in different elements of popular culture, and I'll say "keep". But you can't do that, because nobody has written anything like that. Tottering Blotspurs (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't bother merging into anything. Well almost everything here can be looked up just because it exsists does not imply that it is notable. Also sources have nothing to do with the topic as a whole, but serve rather as mere examples --T-rex 16:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple sources do indeed imply notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the sources were about "Pizza delivery in popular culture" then yes. However, they are not, and as such don't indicate any notability --T-rex 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources deal with pizza delivery in popular culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All but one of the "independent sources" are movie reviews. That is no better than using the primary source. --Phirazo 17:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable primary sources are acceptable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Movie reviews do not make the topic notable. None of the sources discuss pizza delivery's impact on pop culture at large, just on a single movie. There are no sources that tie this together. The central claim that pizza delivery has had an impact on pop culture is an original synthesis based on either the primary source or a secondary source close to primary source (such as a movie review). This is "I spy" trivia that tells us nothing about pop culture or pizza delivery. --Phirazo 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Movie reviews make a topic notable as they are reliable secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But this article is not a movie, there is no relevance having movie reviews as evidence. doktorb _words^deeds 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article is about pizza delivery in popular culture; movies about pizza delivery are indeed examples in popular culture. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The central thesis of this article, "The basic concept of pizza delivery has become part of popular culture", is unsourced. Specific examples are of course sourced, but the central thesis is not. There is nothing tying this together that is not original research. --Phirazo 21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article does not have a thesis, it merely covers pizza delivery in popular culture. What ties it togetehr is unoriginal research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is an extrapolation of facts that an item mentioned in a fictional work is also an example of that item in popular culture. It is this extrapolation that makes this article original research. --Allen3 ^talk 22:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • An obvious extrapolation of facts, such as computers have keyboards or films are popular culture, cannot really be original research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) The article claims that pizza is important to pop culture. That is the original research. The movie reviews don't talk about pizza delivery in pop culture, they talk about pizza delivery in specific fictional works. There is no high level analysis in secondary sources, which is what this article needs to satisfy notability and verifiability. --Phirazo 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not original research when others ([1], [2], and [3]) have made the same connection previously. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Source 1: Blog. Source 2: Not about pizza delivery. Source 3: Soft news countdown that is more about pizza in movies than pizza delivery. None of these are useable in the article. --Phirazo 03:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not opposed to expanding the article's scope to be about pizza in popular culture. The sources do show that others indeed find value in listing pizza delivery and pizza in popular culture (movies are an element of popular culture). Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's cruft and nonsense. Heh, cheese-filled cruft...never mind, sorry doktorb _words^deeds 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Okay then, with reference to the point in that policy which states "Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia" I modify my vote to this - This is cruft and nonsense, in that is an indiscriminate amount of information with no encylopedic merit or value which has breaks WP:LIST, and uses as its sources self-referential and irrelevant sources. The article content advances no argument, other than to satisfy the author's own trivial interest in minor facts and figures without any reference to a wider or global context. 20:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
      • "Cruft" is not used in serious arguments. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • • Reply regarding my DELETE vote I take that point, although I use the phrase in passing to be fair, and consequently, alter my vote as follows. With reference to the quoted element of the deletion policy, above, I modify my vote to delete with regards to the unenclycopedic value of the article, the self-referential sources, and lack of advanced, credible, arguments or content. The fact that I mentioned "cruft" should not - indeed I feel does not, in any case, invalidate my point. doktorb _words^deeds 21:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The article has encyclopedic value to those who created, worked on, and are arguing to keep it here. The article actually shouldn't advance arguments as that would be original research. That the article merely presents referenced information in a straightforward manner makes it encyclopedic. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in reiteration of my comment at DRV. This is indeed cruft as noted in the above excerpt from ATA. Eusebeus (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a random list of trivia about a common occurrence. It is content which is not appropriate for the encyclopedia. I am also persuaded by the original synthesis arguments raised above. The fact that individual instances can be sourced does not absolve all WP:NOR concerns. The compilation as a list must also be independent of Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is pretty well focused and so can't really be called random. As it doesn't advance a thesis and is easily verfiable, it is unoriginal research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I read that when you said it above. No, I don't agree with you. Rossami (talk)
      • If we expand the scope even further, then we will see that indeed others have discussed pizza and pizza delivery as a popular culture phenomenon. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that would be popular culture in pizza, not the other way around. --Phirazo 00:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you mean, pizza in popular culture? I don't see how there could be popular culture in pizza. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it was a lousy attempt at a Russian reversal. Not pizza in popular culture, but popular culture in pizza. --Phirazo 03:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly merge (though is quite hefty) to parent article. Notable plot element for which there has been significant commentary Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what movie was this a notable plot element? --T-rex 23:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here, as well as Drivers Wanted, Fat Pizza: The Movie, this, and here. I find this list particularly revealing as it clearly indicates the crucial relevance of pizza and pizza delivery to the plots of the films in question. There's also this film, for better or worse... You have to love the product descripton: "Everybody orders pizza delivery. But when your pizza arrives who is it that you're opening your door to? Is it a nice kid looking to make a few bucks...or is it Monty? Montgomery Goth (Matt Nelson) is a gentle loner with a traumatic past trying to put the pieces of his life back together while working as a delivery boy for a local pizza place. He has no friends no life and no prospects for the future until one day he meets the girl of his dreams Bibi (Tara Cardinal) and life seems to finally change for the better. But a series of events will test Montgomery's sanity and awaken the demons inside of him unleashing a murderous rampage that will keep everyone from ordering delivery for a very longlong time..." Classic. Finally, we have this. So, we have movies whose titles and plots deal directly with pizza delivery and other lists on the internet besides Wikipedia that focus on pizza delivery scenes. Oh, also as far as television shows go, see [4]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appending "in popular culture" to a list of trivia is not a formula for making said list notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 07:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an organized, notable, and sourced thematic article on the impact of pizza delivery on popular culture, rather than trivia. But even if it was, there is no policy that forbids trivia. — Becksguy (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRIVIA. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with WP:TRIVIA, which is a style guideline primarily on the presentation of what some people refer to as trivia in trivia sections. It is not policy and does not forbid trivia, rather it suggests organization and integration. It does not refer to WP:IPC articles. — Becksguy (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into Pizza delivery and remove all but the most notable references to films, etc. A paragraph of prose is appropriate, but not a large list containing every single reference. Mr. Absurd (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - changes have been minimal --T-rex 17:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - changes have been substantial enough to save the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply I have looked at the changes and feel they have not saved this article from being a trivial list doktorb _words^deeds 16:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The point of an "In popular culture" section in an article is to give a nice sourced summary of the topic's impact in the world. It is not meant to list every little minor piece of trivia that one can scrounge up. TTN (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a call for making the material more concise and merging it, but not for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, TTN, as to the purpose of WP:IPC content. No one says that this article should include every single incidence of pizza delivery in every single movie, book, etc, despite the deletionist unsupported claim that the scope of the article is that inclusive. And if there is too much detail, then the remedy is consensus based editing, per WP:DEL, not deleting the article, as that is a destructive to WP baby-bathwater solution, here and elsewhere. — Becksguy (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Trivial list. Merge any useful information into Pizza delivery. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot delete and merge per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well we can, actually. The necessary information can be merged back into the original article, with any non-suitable material deleted. Or, if you prefer, after the partial merger, this article is re-directed. doktorb _words^deeds 21:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have to keep the edit history public per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards Merge, though Keep would be preferable over delete. Most of the incidents listed appear to be trivial, however, some seem as though they might be sourcable enough to justify keeping it a seperate article. McJeff (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the list truly is trivial in nature and any outright notable instances of "pizza delivery in popular culture" (I can't believe I'm even typing that) could be mentioned in the Pizza delivery article if need be. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pizza and pizza delivery are indeed a notable and encyclopedic part of popular culture, as all the cultural references, events and memes, thematic elements, and plot device citations provided show.

See the "St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture" article on Pizza [5], in which it says that delivered pizza defines a part of popular culture. From there, in pertinent part: Delivery service combined this convenience and the desire for choice: people could call up a nearby pizza shop, ... and have the food delivered to their door within the hour. As such, pizza enjoyed a reputation for being a casual food meant for informal occasions, and, indeed, defined these occasions as such. People commonly ate the slices of pizza with their hands, right out of the boxes they were delivered in...

This isn't some obscure cultural element. It's deeply embedded into our popular culture, starting post WW2 when fast food and delivery became much more prevalent and normal, among other societal and cultural sea changes, popular and otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if almost every person in America (and maybe in large parts of the world) knows what pizza delivery is, has seen it on TV, or in the movies, and experienced it, or some combination of those. These multiple representations of pizza delivery show the impact the phenomena has on pop culture. Claiming that pizza delivery isn't an encyclopedic quality cultural phenomenon is like claiming that terrorists didn't bring down the twin towers. — Becksguy (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to Keep per Becksguy. McJeff (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pizza delivery is a common action modern human beings do. It is part of daily life so many films, books, etc. just describing a normal daily life can have this. It is similar to other normal human actions like "buying from the grocery's", "eating Chinese food", "having a massage", "waxing your legs", etc. etc. The pizza delivery article can have a reference for when pizza delivery become so popular and some of the first references to a film or a book but not a separate article, not a list and not more than 2 examples. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a common daily life activity in America, and prolly large parts of the Western world. And that's exactly why it needs to have an article. Think of WP as providing an explanation for someone completely unaware of Western popular culture. Just because every one here knows exactly what pizza delivery is, and most, if not all of the cultural references, does not mean that others do, per systemic bias. One should be able to gain a basic understanding of anything and everything from WP, for which the core mission as stated by Jimbo is: ...free access to the sum of all human knowledge. Deleting this would be a betrayal of that mission. Secondly, this is a deletion discussion on this article only, not what might, or might not be merged back into the parent article from whence it came. That is a editing process to take place there. — Becksguy (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dude, you are aware that there is an article on pizza delivery? This debate is about pizza delivery in popular culture. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this article could more accurately be titled "list of occasions when a book, video game, film or television programme has mentioned pizza delivery". Whilst the fact that these media have mentioned pizza delivery is verifiable, it does not make the topic encyclopedic, as there are no sources covering the subject of pizza delivery in popular culture as a whole. Hut 8.5 20:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The topic lacks encyclopaedic value. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does have wikipedic value. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's such an unnecessary response. You don't have to try and dismiss everyone's opinions. Shall I say back, "It doesn't" so that you can reply, "It does!" Can you see how redundant that comment is? Can't you let people express what they want to say? For me, it's getting to the point where I don't want to bother expressing myself at all. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seraphim, I wouldn't say it, if I didn't think it worthwhile. It is a discussion, not a list of votes. In a discussion we engage each other. Anyway, by "wikipedic" I am of course referring to how wikipedia is a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias as well as almanacs and thus "unencyclopedic" is usually not a substantial reason for deletion as it is a somewhat vague and subjective term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we keep that we can create millions of similar articles like "Phone calling in popular culture", "walking a dog in popular culture", "washing the dishes in popular culture", etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If multiple films have been made specifically on those topics as indicated above such films have been made about pizza delivery, then why not? If the pizza delivery guy in pornographic films, which is typically parodied on sketch comedy shows were also the case with phone calling, dog walking, etc., then again, why not. I don't think "in popular culture" is an all or nothing. In this case, more than just a few people have identified a clear cinematic use of pizza and/or pizza delivery in mainstream films, pornographic films, and television comedy sketches and we know people use Wikipedia for this particular article as a website has even been identified as linking to the article in question. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:04, 22 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.