Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Primeval locations


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Primeval locations

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unnotable list of unnotable fictional locations of the Primeval series. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. The locations have no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and such a list is not an appropriate component of any television series article. Deprodded by User:DGG with note of "sorry, meant to deprod"? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No evidence is offered for the claims made by the nomination. A brief search soon indicates that the locations for this work are, in fact, notable.  See here, for example. No discussion was made at the article's talk page and so the nomination fails WP:BEFORE in several ways. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant series, and the best way of handling the material. The individual locations are perhaps notable, perhaps not, but the individual parts of an article do not have to be. (FWIW, I would oppose making separate articles for them even if they were, as excessive fragmentation).  They are sourced by the work itself, which is not only acceptable but preferred for factual description of fiction. It could in principle be merged into the main article, and it might appear   basically a question of arrangement,--even so,  for major series, dividing it up rather than having one monster article is appropriate. However, it is a much more than just a question of arrangement,  when we combine too far,  the material often gets removed.  The nom apparently intends to do just that, saying "Such a list is not an appropriate component of every fiction series article for major fiction". I do not see on what basis information about the locations and setting is not an appropriate component of the coverage of fiction. I challenge the nom to say why they think otherwise.  It is nominations like this which show why we have not been able to reach a compromise: those who would prefer separate articles will compromise on combination ones, but the fiction minimalists refuse even that--and apparently refuse even coverage in the main articles.  It is true we would not include this information if we were an encyclopedia designed for 19th century scholars, but that's the opposite type of encyclopedia from Wikipedia.      DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because extensive minute coverage of the fictional locations of a little 23 episode series are NOT necessary to understanding the basics of the series. Who the hell needs a one paragraph description of what a "home office" is to understand that they have an office they work out of? Most of the locations are one episode locations, and not even "major" locations within the series. The locations are properly mentioned, in context, within the episode and plot descriptions. A list of them is beyond pointless and excessive. People wanting to keep stuff like this is why we can't reach a compromise. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. A major series may warrant a single character list split, or an episode list. But not a list of every freaking fictional element it may possibly contain because the fans want to wax on and on with their personal interpretations and beliefs about a series. The main article is just plain out damn pathetic, and barely above a stub, but yes, lets have 15 subarticles anyway because OMG don't you dare take away my right to randomly guess and conduct OR on Wikipedia because its just fiction and who cares. The material is also not appropriate in the main article per the guidelines for a quality television article set out by consensus of those who actually bother to work on them, rather than the "fiction overcoveragers" (if you want to throw around derogatory terms) who just run around screaming keep at every little fiction item that they themselves will never actually improve or deal with. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we  have different ideas about the amount of information we think necessary to understanding. I consider this an encyclopedia, not an abridged encyclopedia. (That said, I agree some of the descriptions can be shortened; a great many articles of this sort would benefit from it--but that's just a question of editing. )  DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment – While neutral about the article's existence, I find the title of the article highly ambiguous and misleading. Would strongly prefer a title such as "List of Primeval (TV series) locations".  I honestly thought the article had something to do with other articles such as Primeval forest. &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * if kept rename per Aladdin Sane, as "Primeval" in this context is highly ambiguous, and List of Primeval (TV series) locations is a much better title. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete It's cool that the series has great locations, but that is not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. The purpose of an article is for people who don't know about something to get the basic information, and in this case maybe watch the program. One article is enough to do this. No need for articles on the locations, etc. which are no interest except to people who are already fans and they shouldn't be reading about their program in an encyclopedia anyway . Northwestgnome (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete rationale seems to be mostly IDONTLIKEIT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to be the only delete vote and I do like it, just not in an encyclopedia for the general public.Northwestgnome (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete (or if kept, rename). The locations just don't come anywhere near notability. There are a bajillion TV, book, movie series. There are bajillion^N fictional locations. Listing them all is a lovely (if sysyphean) idea for a project... somewhere else. Not on this site. If this particular series is special in some way that others are not, such that its locations are somehow notable in themselves, then at least the name of this page needs to be clearer. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the individual locations do not come anywhere near notability, and we should not have individual articles on them. That's in fact the whole point of having an article like this, to cover them appropriately.   DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The scope of this article fails WP:N, as well as WP:WAF as there is no significant out-of-universe coverage of this material. Just as we don't need to create an article on my hand just because each of the fingers on it aren't notable, we don't need to have an article on a nonnotable grouping of locations just because each of them aren't notable by themselves.  Them  From  Space  03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Also fails WP:WAF. Relevent locations already appear to be discussed within the episode descriptions. Sarilox (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2010 (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.