Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackadder Hall


 * 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   redirect to Blackadder. Cirt (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Blackadder Hall

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - article has been tagged for notability since May 19, 2008 and there have been no subsequent edits. Notability requires that independent reliable sources cover the subject of the article substantively and there are appear to be no independent reliable sources that establish any notability for this specific fictional residence outside of the series. Note that the unquestioned notability of the series does not mean that every single element of the fiction is independently notable in the absence of said reliable sources. The article is merely a recitation of a few random plot points, which appear to be covered adequately within the article for the series as a whole and/or within the articles on the individual seasons. Prod removed under the novel, yet far from correct, theory that merging to some article somewhere is always under every circumstance preferable to deletion; the very existence of the AFD process demonstrates that this theory is incorrect. I would hope that those who plan to argue in favor of retaining this article will also offer up the reliable sources that they claim support its notability. Otto4711 (talk) 05:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "theory that merging to some article somewhere is always under every circumstance preferable to deletion; the very existence of the AFD process demonstrates that this theory is incorrect." The AFD process is to discuss deletions and is totally unrelated to idea merging. The fact the deletion process exists, doesn't mean merging is bad in this particular case. - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I can only glean the belief of the de-prodder from what he asserted in his edit summary, which was "Merge always preferred to deletion." Clearly, since we do delete some articles rather than merge them, this assertion is not correct. Otto4711 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Extremely minor plot point, relating only to two one-off special episodes of the series.  No reason to believe that this location is particularly important for understanding the show.  Would be an irrelevant digression if merged elsewhere.  JulesH (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - Is there one or more lists that might be appropriate for merging this to? - jc37 08:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is rather short - can't we just sumarize a bit it and merge it into Blackadder? Laurent (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete - an abbreviated form of this - perhaps just two sentences - could easily be merged with the Blackadder article--Moloch09 (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Blackadder as a likely search term. (only merge when the information is verified) - Mgm|(talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How, when someone typing in Blackadder Hall will get Blackadder after typing Blackad is this a likely search term? Otto4711 (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that work across all platforms and cover all eventualities? Hiding T 13:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any situation in which this will not be the case. Assuming there is some platform out there where this isn't the case, the likelihood that someone is going to search for a specific fictional structure from a specific TV series and not know about the TV series is remote to the point of near-complete implausibility. Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically, redirects are free, this is a valid redirect, it may possibly be of use, and so we could just go and redirect it? Just in case someone comes to this page from one of the many websites that may well still link to it? That might actually work, yes? Hiding T 11:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically, this is an extremely-to-the-point-of-ridiculousness unlikely (and therefore useless) search string, the article on the series will come up in advance of the redirect (thus making it invalid), not every possible thing that someone might possibly on a one-in-a-million whim type in a search box needs to be a redirect, and I see no indication that there is some multitude of websites out there that link to this page. So, no, still not seeing the point in turning this improbable, useless and invalid search string into a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I followed all that. I see lots of words I understand, but they don't seem to make sense when placed in that order.  Basically, and correct me if I have this wrong for reasons just outlined, you are saying that even though people might actually arrive at this page from the internet, it would be better for them to be faced with a blank page that they might then create, than to be redirected somewhere useful? I think I have that right in reading the last couple of words, which seem to state that even given the possibility that a redirect would be of use, you'd much rather not, because... actually, I can't come up with a reason why.  I think it is because you don't want to, which is fair enough, but if that's all it is, this is just arguing for the sake of it.  It strikes me, though that this is also indicative of a major problem on Wikipedia:  What is the major objection to redirection as a simple solution? It can't be the ease of implementation, there must be something deeper.  Perhaps a fear of conflict, or a need to see a final solution.  It's certainly something to think about.  There might even be an essay in this. I'm going to have to think about this one. Hiding T 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirects are free and informative. Why are we here? Hiding T 12:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this information is so irrelevant that it shouldn't be included in any of the articles on the topic, and because having a redirect but no information about the subject of the redirect would be silly. JulesH (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it's often been found quite useful to redirect related terms to a suitable article, so much so that it is part of the things to consider before listing an article for afd. I guess we have different values, and when that happens, I always find it better to lean on guidance. YMMV. Hiding T 16:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No assertion of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Blackadder. Most fictional locations are not worth more than a mention in the main article, and this doesn't seem to be an exception. – sgeureka t•c 11:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I had a look at my box set as well as the secondary literature and just don't see the notability - worth a line at most in the blackadder article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Blackadder. This fictional place has no independent notability beyond the piece of fiction it belongs to, not established by sources currently in the article and, by my search, not available at all. Wikipedia should not be a fan site, or a glossary, and the accretion of articles devoted to non-notable segments of works of fiction does harm to the project. "Blackadder Hall is the home of the fictional Blackadder family" seems about all that should be menioned in the blackadder article, but that's for editors working over there, of course.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect per hiding. Ikip (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2009 (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.