Deletion of List of fictional companies (3rd nomination)

Comment: This should go because of #INDISCRIMINATE|the indiscriminate nature of the collection. It is a selective collection based on what a few editors find personally interesting. There are thousands of times as many fictional companies as the ones listed here, so it is unmaintainable. No independent and reliable source is presented to show that this particular sample of fictional companies is more notable than all the omitted ones. Also the article fails #IINFO and #DIRECTORY. The best arguement presented for its retention is that it is interesting, which bumps into the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: #IINFO and #DIRECTORY are a ''major'' problem here, which can't be imrpoved because it's already the basis for the whole article. The last few months of no improvement just enhance this interpretation. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Having reviewed #INFO, I disagree that this policy is in violation, because I do not see these lists as indiscriminate.  However #DIRECTORY appears to be.  It is a shame because I really do see value to these lists as research tools, as long as they are properly referenced.  However, I'm not seeing a loophole on this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Merge or Delete''' the rest. Most of the articles in the companies articles meet  easily, just remove and AFD the ones that don't, and I understand the importance of fictional companies in pop culture, like Acme. The other three fail #INFO and most of the articles listed are to rediect targets and such, therefore fails , the ones that has their own indiviual articles should be merged or deleted if there aren't any
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION||WP:NOT||WP:FICTION)

Comment: Per , it is contrary to policy to renominate so soon in the hope of getting a different result.  Bundling several unrelated nominations together is disruptive too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL)

Comment: just because it says Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information douse not mean that you can openly discriminate against information, these list do not have a Lists of Frequently Asked Questions, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases, Statistics, or News reports so they do not fall under #INFO. I am sick of people using this as an excuse to delaet everything, because of people like you an Emmey award winning tv series goes from having a large detailed article, episode guide, and character guide, with a page for each episode and character to short article, a bare bones list with no information besides the name the episode, and a sentence for each character. Just because a few people thought that an award winning show with millions of viewers was not notable, had OR because there were to lazy to watch it or look at the sources, or my favorite, there is to much information in the artical. please do not deleat this like so much other good information on this wiki. —&nbsp;Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Enough already. This is not an "indiscriminate collection of information" except in the minds of those wanting to delete this article, who pick the most vague wording of any policy in order to justify elevating personal opinion to the status of policy. Descriptive information about fictional elements sourced to fictional works do not violate any Wikipedia policy (especially not |verifiability, |original research, or , the classic core "non-negotiable" policies—other policies and guidelines can be |ignored when consensus deems them inapplicable). There is strong |consensus among ''editors'' (as opposed to the |systemically biased claimed "consensus" among those who participate in AfD or rewrite policy pages to shape Wikipedia into their own personal vision of what it should be) that these articles should exist. The most reliable source for any fictional item is the work of fiction itself, claims of no reliable sources are unfounded. No one believes this list should contain every fictional company or station that ever existed; limiting the lists to those which are significant elements of notable works of fiction would be a reasonable inclusion criteria. The entire |notablity of fiction guideline is currently under dispute because it is attempting to push the minority views of those arguing to delete here, which do ''not'' in any way, shape, or form represent the consensus of Wikipedians who write articles on fictional topics. Further, any remaining perceived |problems with the articles can be fixed, by trimming, merging, editing to provide more context, adding sources, etc. Stop deleting the work of hundreds of Wikipedia editors because they don't fit your particular vision of what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia is a community project to build an encyclopedia, a "encyclopedia|comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge"; driving away people because they write about things you are not interested in is detrimental to the most fundamental goals of this project. Aggressive deletion campaigns drive away many editors who are acting in good faith and they are a horrible way to achieve "consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV||WP:IAR||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:BIAS||WP:FICT||WP:PROBLEM)

Comment: these are all #IINFO|indiscriminate collections of #DIR|loosely associated topics. Most works of fiction make some mention or other of some fictional business and in the overwhelming majority of cases that fictional business has little significance to the work of fiction and absolutely no real-world significance. On those rare occasions when a fictional business has any real-world notability that requires coverage outside the article for its fictional source then it should have a separate article and be located in the appropriate category. "It mentions a fictional business" is not a theme of a work of fiction. The lists do not meet the guidelines of  as they do not serve any navigational function (most of the links are to the fiction in which the business is found, not to articles about the businesses, which don't by and large exist), nor do they serve as a resource for topic development since there is no notability for the vast majority of the listed businesses. While the lists are informational in nature, the information they are gathering is indiscriminate and thus the guideline for lists is trumped by the policy . See similar deletions for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants|a list of fictional restaurants and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional online services (2nd nomination)|a list of fictional online services
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:LIST)