Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Valley (Back to the Future)


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hill Valley (Back to the Future)

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

mostly fun craft and original research. information provided are mostly of no interest to readers. PongPias (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — PongPias (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No interest to anyone who isn't a fan of Back to the Future and its sequels, but to those who are it could be of great interest. --Susan118 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete "Fun craft?" Hee hee. Seriously, it's in-universe fansite material with not enough out of universe coverage to warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't fun craft something like a jet ski? --Susan118 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the name of a new Jo-Ann Fabrics competitor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is a lot of information there about shooting locations, parts of the "town" that were used in other movies, etc. This isn't a little blurb about a town in an unknown film, but a lengthy article detailing many aspects of the fictional location of three notable films. I'm not saying it couldn't use some work and be cut down a bit, but it shouldn't be deleted.--Susan118 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, the films are notable, things linked to or appaearing in the films may not be. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well written – well referenced – informative piece that has been around since 2003.  Why bring to AFD?  ShoesssS Talk 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it's full of trivia and written in universe, with little potential of becoming out of universe? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – Am I to respond to your comment or just let it speak for itself? ShoesssS Talk 19:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep detailed and sourced article on setting appearing in multiple works. Fun cruft! Artw (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if those saying keep can come up with third party reliable sources to take it out of universe then I'll change my vote, but I don't see that happening. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A well written and encyclopdic article, that though of no interest to the nom, may well be so for many other Wikipedia readers and even some editors. I do not see the sourced informations as being WP:OR in their factual presentation.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While I think several parts of the article are arguably droppable as being "crafty", and perhaps a few of the in-universe articles could be rolled together in some form, total deletion seems like overkill (particularly when compared with things that I'm getting vigorous arguments for keeping). Frankly, it's not a bad article, it's reasonably detailed, and there's enough that's not tied into the in-universe location that while a reshuffle may be in order, a total axing of the article seems like something that's a bit overboard.Tyrenon (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, even if all of the "in-universe" content was removed (although I still think it could just be re-worded), there would still be enough for a decent article. --Susan118 (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a key plot device to 3 notable films.  While I agree it needs some references, that alone does not warrant deletion without time to insert such references.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but cut down on the minutae. I think this has a chance of being notable if someone put the effort in; it certainly has production info, which gives me hope. If it's not kept, merge to Back to the Future (series) Sceptre (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Back to the Future (series) and merge to there any relevant production information not covered in franchise article - Nothing innately special about this location; the movie could've happened in Miami or Las Vegas or wherever and it wouldn't especially matter. Redirect to franchise article for general information. --EEMIV (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is well written and anyone who calls this "fan craft" or anything like that should remember thats who is going to want to read this article fans of the movie people who are interested in Back to the Future. The list of changes to the locations is interesting and a good reference here would have to be the extras on the DVDs where the directors talk about how they built the Hill Valley set in each time period. Watching the movies is the best source of information here too. Bhowden (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That doesn't address the article's failure to establish notability -- primary sources might be useful to substantiate descriptions of the city, and commentary tracks offer production information, but there's no evidence any third-party sources have offered significant coverage of the topic (i.e. that the topic is notable). "It's useful" and "It's interesting" are insufficient reasons to create/retain Wikipedia content. --EEMIV (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's a lot of original research here, but there's also a lot of real-world information sourced to reliable sources, sufficient to demonstrate notability.  The OR can be removed or sourced without deleting the article entirely.  Powers T 14:55, 29 May 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.