Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coal Hill School


 * 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   no consensus. good luck finding a consensus here. I couldn't...   Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Coal Hill School

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nowhere near notable enough. This location has only been used as a minor background, and that only in a very small number of stories Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Brief, incidental mentions don't constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. For this (or any fictional location, or real one for that matter) to merit its own article, the location itself needs to be the specific focus of significant coverage. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I have substantially expanded this article since it was nominated for AfD; it now contains many references to "significant coverage in reliable sources". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. Take away the extraneous plot details about the characters, and there's maybe 2-3 sentences you can say about the school. It is a searchable term, but I have no idea of a good target article immediately (maybe List of Doctor Who items) --M ASEM  (t) 04:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect/Merge (if there is any material rescuable) - I just don't see the required substantial coverage of the subject as described by the General Notability Guideline. Certainly not in the reviews. Harmes mentions it in discussion of the show reusing its heritage, but the text does not go into depth on the school. (I recognize what follows here is an OtherStuff-based comment but by comparison one could probably assemble a greater number of passing mentions over the years to put forward a case for writing an article on the Brigadier's office, or the Doctor's laboratory, during the Unit years.) GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: What about the discussion from the Newman and Wood books? I'm also not sure that I see the distinction between significant coverage of the school qua school and significant coverage of the school as a symbol or reference. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It depends whether the quote by Newman represents all he has to say on the matter. The bit from Wood comes across as an attempt at fan continuity rather than addressing the narrative imperative, or the productive limitations (whichever was the dominant force). I shall see though if my library can supply either.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The quoted bit is just his conclusion, after two paragraphs discussing the way that schools were generally portrayed at the time in British children's television and children's fiction in general. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Is the location where an iconic TV series began. Almost all of the 25th anniversary series takes place in or around it and it is a reoccurring location in the last two series as the current companion teaches there and the article can continue to grow due to this. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Not everything that appears in two Doctor Who stories needs an article. If it was an important location then you may have a point, but as I said it is just a background location.  Literally all we learn in the episode is Susan goes there, and Ian and Barbara teach there - this is not remotely worthy of being mentioned in a separate article.  The school is then not seen for 25 years, and then not seen again for another 25.  This is not a crucial location like the TARDIS, this is a minor location easily replaceable with another minor location with absolutely nothing beyond fancruft (seriously, where the heck are we getting the motto from?  That's not in Unearthly Child) and speculation.  Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: just noticed that the motto has in fact been removed - but I stand by the point that the location is not noteworthy enough. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: actually, it's four stories in three periods over the course of 51 years (and more in the coming weeks). I think that the discussion by Kim Newman indicates why this location is more than fancruft. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * what - the sheer speculation over what type of school it is? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The point isn't whether it's a comprehensive or a secondary modern; the point is that it's not what Newman calls a "fantasy fee-paying school" like Greyfriars or Chiselbury. Newman talks about how Doctor Who sets itself apart from the fictional public-school tradition which still lives on in Hogwarts. If it comes across as "sheer speculation over what type of school it is", perhaps I should rework the relevant text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is more on the alleged motto at Talk:Coal Hill School. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * - wait, your comparing this to Hogwarts? Seriously?!  There is literally no comparison.  Nothing in any of the stories that we have seen gives any detail at all about the nature of the school.  What has been revealed amounts to 4 sentences.  1) Susan went there, 2) Ian and Barbara taught there, 3) It was used as a base by the Daleks once, 4) Clara and Danny teach there.  How on Earth you can pretend that this is like Hogwarts is beyond me.Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't comparing Coal Hill to Hogwarts. Kim Newman, in the reliable source I found, contrasted Coal Hill with Hogwarts. I'll post the full quotation on the article's talk page, so you can see what I'm talking about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The full quotation is now at Talk:Coal Hill School. The only reason I mentioned Hogwarts is because Newman did, in a source which I think meets WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect/Merge It merely serves as a setting. There's no "history" or "mythology" involved (as opposed to Gallifrey or Camelot or Fortress of Solitude). Can be self-contained in the episodes that it appears in (sometimes replaced with Barnes Common--The Daleks). DonQuixote (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: it has just been confirmed by reliable sources that the forthcoming episode "The Caretaker" will also be set at the school, so it is likely that there will be more coverage in reliable sources after that episode airs (scheduled for Sept. 27). This might be worth considering in closing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Request for Comment I haven't gone through every link as of yet, but is there at least one secondary citation in which this fictional location is the primary topic of an article (i.e. instead of being mentioned as part of a review of an episode or as a reference to Doctor Who's history)? I'm willing to consider the argument that fictional locations on their own have some notability, be it Pemberley or the Baxter Building but I'd like to see some clear evidence of "significant coverage" that's not in a gray area. -Markeer 01:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The best cases for the "significant coverage" criterion, IMO, are the books by Newman and Tat Wood. YMMV on whether Newman's comparison of the setting to other children's television settings of the period and the traditions of the school story is sufficient to constitute "significant coverage". The Tat Wood article is admittedly more "fannish", but it's certainly detailed; it's a four-page sidebar about the school, based on the evidence shown on-screen and the British educational system of the period. The online links, however, are largely passing references. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and thank you Josiah Rowe for clarifying my question above. The overall question of whether fictional settings should have their own articles would probably be an interesting one, but as I linked above at the moment there are numerous precedents for articles of that type so the only question would be whether this specific article passes notability.  Based on Josiah Rowe's comment, at least one citation is for a lengthy sidebar article specifically on this subject and there is a second book that deals with the location itself in at least some detail.  Combined with the numerous trivial references in secondary articles about the episodes this location appears in, that seems (to me at least) to pass the guidelines for notability.  But for emphasis: This seems to BARELY pass those guidelines.  Additional sources would be of great value to this article, particularly of any secondary source that treats this location as its primary topic. -Markeer 16:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that "numerous precedents" = consensus in general or  "numerous precedents" =WP:OtherStuffExists? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * GraemeLeggett, it might very well mean WP:OtherStuffExists, that's been on my mind. But as long as the specific article in front of me seems to pass wikipedia's guidelines, I'm comfortable with my Keep opinion.  Regarding OtherStuff - I'd be very interested to know if there's been any kind of discussion about location/setting articles.  I've been on an extended wiki-vacation for some time so don't know if there's any kind of consensus on that subject or not.-Markeer 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what I was asking - has there been any discussion on common settings. Have there been more locations that might be in a similar boat, and where there might be examples to indicate policy/consensus. A quick rummage finds some unconsidered morsels (no related discussions). Thrushcroft Grange redirects to Wuthering Heights while Wuthering Heights (fictional location) is an independent article. "Bag End" redirects (without any fuss according to page history) to the Shire where it has a few paragraphs, Heorot is a separate article and not a redirect to Beowulf. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Coal Hill school is not a common setting though. If it was, I wouldn't have started this.  In references to the sources - I don't think that they qualify as coverage of the school.  For Remembrance and Day, the are only about the reaction to continuity reference in the episodes - not about the school itself.  The only one which comes close is the attempt to compare it to other schools at the time on the basis of Unearthly Child, but since Unearthly Child reveals nothing about the school (the scenes only show us Ian and Barbara discussing Susan, and then Susan being shown as a mystery) I think this comparison is utterly meaningless.  If the consensus is against me, fine - but I don't see enough information about the school, so I'm not going to withdraw this nomination. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's worth remembering that the question is not whether we think that there is enough information in a primary source (in this case, the TV episodes) to merit "significant coverage" in secondary sources, but whether such significant coverage in secondary sources exists. In this case, I think it does. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant recurring location. Artw (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge into "An Unearthly Child" (or a more relavent article if you can find one.) -- User J Dalek  23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Into which episode? Because next week's episode is due to be set there.  And it's a recurring location that's shown up over the course of decades. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per everyone above. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  15:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Recurring location which gets reasonable coverage as such in the extensive Dr Who literature. Passes WP:GNG and our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That editing policy says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Deletion could be considered 'removal'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - currently scrapes past the sufficient coverage guides and is about to be the central setting of next week's episode as well as having been a recurring location over more than 50 years. Deleting right now would be silly.  Neonchameleon (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - "a recurring location over more than 50 years" - hardly. It's featured in only 4 stories, and in two of those it was there for less than a minute. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're having trouble counting, EleventhDoctor. It's a major setting in An Unearthly Child, Remembrance of the Daleks, "Into the Dalek" (several scenes in a good five-minute chunk) and next Saturday's "The Caretaker". There are also brief ("less than a minute") scenes set at the school in "Day of the Doctor", "Deep Breath" (in flashback, but it's new footage), and "Time Heist". That's 7 stories, not 4. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And then there's books, comics etc... Though that may begin to get ridiculous. Artw (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep A recurring location which is significant enough in the series history (and continues to be used regularly in the current season). The article definitely needs to be improved upon, but it shouldn't be deleted.kuwabaratheman (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect a background feature in a popular programme that fails to have significant coverage. (Does the apartment window in The Honeymooners which Ralph Kramden (Jackie Gleason) uses almost every episode to call Ed, and through which Ed crawls in numerous episodes rate an article stub? Or Ralph's bowling league? Both are mentioned in reviews.) These two or at most three sentence about Coal Hill Sch. belong, if they belong in the encyclopedia at all, in an appropriate article and not as a standalone. --Bejnar (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - with the latest episode now past, I still don't see anything either in the article or in the sources that warrants it's own article. The sources are all incidental coverage in relation to reaction to the episode, not about the school.  In regard to the number I started earlier being short, I will apologise for missing some appearances out, but the earlier point that the location is only a background to other events stands.  The last episode could have been in  deffry vale school - and it wouldn't have made that more notable either.  Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it couldn't have been — as the Radio Times reviewer noted, the episode linked the presence of the villain to the Doctor's repeated visits to Coal Hill, so the Doctor is "rectifying a problem he's caused". That wouldn't have worked with any other school (or any other location, really, except perhaps 76 Totter's Lane). You may not have noticed how the location was relevant, but fortunately a reliable source did. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge ala Peladon or Andoria entries. eheinr007 — Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Question: Peladon redirects to List of Doctor Who planets. Andoria redirects to List of Star Trek planets (A–B). Coal Hill School is not a planet; is there a redirect target you feel would be appropriate? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Just because this setting recurs several times in the fiction does not make it notable. WP:GNG is not met: we have numerous references to the School, but where's the out-of-universe discussion of the School? WP:GNG requires significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The citations given provide significant coverage of the stories concerned, not of the School. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What about the lengthy passage from the Newman book, excerpted in the article and given in full at Talk:Coal Hill School? Isn't that precisely the sort of out-of-universe discussion of the school you're looking for? And the Tat Wood book has a four-page sidebar about the school — admittedly from a fan perspective, but certainly significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That, it seems to me, does not mean merely a paragraph, as with the Newman quotation, or a sidebar in Tat's book. To be sure of notability, I would want to see articles/chapters about Coal Hill School. The material you present could be better covered in the relevant story articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply — fair enough. The definition of "significant coverage" is, I suppose, up to each reader/editor to determine. But the Tat Wood sidebar incorporates information from both An Unearthly Child and Remembrance of the Daleks, and so would be a slightly odd fit in either story's article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply It is not up to each editor to determine what is "significant coverage": WP:SIGCOV specifies what is meant by "significant coverage" and any residual uncertainty should be determined by discussion leading to consensus. I vaguely know Tat, so I will excuse myself from RS discussion of the use of his works. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply' Sorry, what I should have said is that editors may differ on whether a given reference constitutes "significant coverage". The GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I interpret the Newman and Wood references as falling into that definition, but if consensus disagrees I will accept that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV does not require chapters or articles. In any case, once we have any amount of well-documented material, we're no longer talking about outright deletion as merger is preferable.  This is made fairly clear at WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect/merge There's little reason to have this purely in-plot minor element of the show on a separate page to include its completely in universe plot only details.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:14, 2 October 2014 (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.