Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bars


 * 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. Eluchil404 05:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional bars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - see also Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants. Vast numbers of works of fiction contain a fictional bar or at least a mention of one. A listing of every one of them is a directory of loosely associated items. Those very few fictional bars that have notability apart from the originating fiction should have their own articles and be categorized in Category:Fictional bars and inns. The presence of a bar in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the work of fiction and nothing about the work's relationship to other fictional works. "It has a bar in it" is not a theme or in the vast majority of cases a central or even an important plot element or point of commonality. Otto4711 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:LC, points 2, 3, 4, 6. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Overcategorization (which is incorporated by reference in WP:L). Trivial and inherently unmaintainable, and therefore could never be a useful or meaningful. Note to Stifle: WP:LC is an essay, but all the concerns you raise are included in WP:L and/or WP:NOT. - Che Neuvara 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Do we really need a list of fake bars? No. ILovePlankton(L—n) 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - No real use to anyone Chandlerjoeyross 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete potentially infinite list. JJL 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As with the "fictional restaurants", the article is a guide to tracking down the origin (and in some cases, the owner of the rights) to the name of a business. New restaurants and bars are launched every year, and this serves a greater purpose than simply "places where you can't really buy a drink".  Many of us cultural illiterates wouldn't automatically link "The Blue Parrot" to Casablanca (though even we would know Rick's Place).  Looks like this is on the way to deletion, but worth saving to one's hard drive.  Mandsford 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Jbeach56 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. Lists help provide organizational structure to the encyclopedia and are sometimes easier to follow than categories, although I'm not opposed to having both.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep interesting and useful. Battle Ape 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. 193.95.165.190 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * two paragraphs in an essay. Not even a flexible guideline, just some peoples' opinion that does not necessarily have consensus--Almost every point of that essay is subject to disagreement, see its talk page. Interesting & useful aren't alone enough, but they certainly don't hurt. 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete- this is a balatant attempt to circumvent the deletion of the fictional restaurants article, and move for a snow delete. It is a bad faith article, which will soon no doubt resemble much of the deleted article anyway, exact same logic for delete anywayJJJ999 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Just another list full of insignificant information. --Slartibartfast ( 19 92 ) 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might be WP:INTERESTING but it sure isn't encyclopedic.   Bur nt sau ce  22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment You may want to interpret their keep votes in light of the existence of humor. --Buridan 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * keepI do not see this as loosely associated, were they loosely associated, i would think that we could substitute a similar term, like monkeys and find that related to that term is sufficiently similar in strength. no, in this case that they are all a bar matters.  beyond that the bars on the list as a whole are more notable than the bars individually, so the article provides material to wp that in deleting it degrades wp. --Buridan 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am unclear what monkeys have to do with anything. Actually, I'm unclear what your comment means at all, as it does not appear to be in a grammatical or syntactical style with which I am familiar. Otto4711 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the argument is they are not loosely associated because the central term matters and is a strong association. the central term is bar, let that be x, were we to take any other term y, and substitute it for x, and find that the lists are the same, then x would be replacable by y, and thus would have no significant associations.  yet, we cannot substitute in this case, substituting y=monkeys for x=bar yields a significant misunderstanding because that items on the list are all bars is what matters.  it is not a loose association between each thing and its category, it is a function of identity, which is perhaps the strongest relation.  so your argument is that they are loosely associated, my argument is that if they were, we would easily be able to test that by the method of substitution, yet, the method of substitution which would show that the central term of association would not matter fails.  it fails because the term of association is in fact, a significant property and really that term is an identifying property, and because of that relationship of identity, the items on the list are all related as the set of things that are bars, and identity relationships are not what we mean by loosely associated.  what one means by loosely associated is the set of things that are bars and monkeys, where for any given thing in the set it could be related to either something it is 'a bar' or something that is not 'a bar' like 'a monkey'.  loose association this is not.  this is a set of things that are strongly identified with each other by their very nature.  so if you choose any two things on the list and ask anyone who has been shown these two things, they will say clearly and likely with a forthright tone, 'those are bars, they are similar, and they are related in kind in several clear and substantive ways which are necessary by their nature as bars'  this is different from say people named 'dorothy parker' which would in fact likely only share one characteristic, their name, and unless someone is particularly cruel, they probably also would be also possess certain secondary sex traits, but we cannot discount cruelty.  so the set of things in the world called dorothy parker is a very loose association, where the set of things that are bars, and fictional bars no less, is a fairly strong associaiton. nominative relations are weak, identity relations are strong. --Buridan 00:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But monkeys have nothing to do with bars. It's easy to prove your argument saying that "bars" isn't replaceable by "monkeys", it's just like saying, I dunno, that fairies exist because they're more rational than flying TV screens with legs that shoot bananas out of a screwdriver for example (yeah I know that made no sense but it's just an example). Besides I don't exactly see how replacing "bars" with something else will make its content less loosly associated. No matter what name you give it, it's still a potentially gigantic list where all items have nothing to do with each other except that they're fictional bars. -- Slarti ( 19  92 ) 01:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Monkeys have nothing to do with bars? WRONG!! Monkey bars redirects to Jungle gym Mandsford 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I kinda thought somebody would bring that up lol. But jungle gyms have nothing to do with fictional bars except the homonym of bars as in "monkey bars" and bars as in "have a drink at a bar". -- Slarti ( 19  92 ) 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * but the logic is that loosely associated must tie things together that have little association? if this were a list of bars and monkeys and catfish and women named olivia, it would clearly be not well associated.  so it is not that, but it is somewhere closer to strongly associated, now then the question follows from your post of 'does the identity fictional bar sufficiently delimit the list to be manageable?'   is that yoru concern?  because then your concern is really one of appropriate rules for inclusion, so the list just needs to be fictional bars that meet some standard of notability? then you have to hold that for all lists, no?  and then don't all lists get turned into categories?  so we can either have a list that is inclusive and notable as the expanded collection which would include items not having an article or mention in wikipedia, or we just have categories?  because if the former is the case, we can have lists that are more expansive than categories, then this list just needs cleanup doesn't it?   why isn't being a 'fictional bar' suffiently delimiting in your mind?   to me it seems a solid way to describe an association of items that are in fact 'fictional bars'. --Buridan 03:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All right... I didn't get most of that, but from the part I was able to understand, I'm guessing you're saying that loosly associated things are things of varied naming. In that case, I say that still "Fictional Bars" is a loose topic because it can include loads of fictional bars and types of fictional restaurants that have absolutely nothing to do with each other except they're fictional bars. Instead, one could place the bar in an article about the fiction work it belongs to, or something of the sort. For example, The Leaky Cauldron is included in the list of bars. It is also in Diagon Alley. There's no use for the same information (actually more on the Diagon Alley article) twice. Now, where would you search for the Leaky Cauldron if it doesn't show up as an article on your search? In List of fictional bars or in Diagon Alley? -- Slarti ( 19  92 ) 22:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * i'd look for bars, then that would likely link to fictional bars, where i would find it. Since i have no idea what diagon alley is, for all i know it would be another bar.  in searching, you can't assume that other's share the deep knowledge of harry potter. nor do people who are unfamiliar with the topic know enough to choose which salient features to search for, so they wouldn't know necessarily in 5-10 years that 'harry potter' is a main character. --Buridan 13:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... your way of searching is definitely unique... how would you know that it would be listed in List of fictional bars or that said article even exists? And why would anybody unfamiliar with the topic of Harry Potter even know about The Leaky Cauldron? I mean, OK, worst case scenario somebody asks you to researh on The Leaky Cauldron and you know nothing about it. How would you even know it's a bar? Now, if they tell you it's a bar, I'm guessing they'll be king enough to tell you it's in the Harry Potter series. OK, you go to that article. You click the link to the first book. You look at the second paragraph in the beginning section and there it is! You follow the link to Diagon Alley. That opposed to randomly guessing a list of fictional bars exists, taking a chance, searching for it, somehow finding it, wondering "what's all this stuff? There's stuff from lots of loosly related works here, only coinciding in that they're fictional bars!", finally scrolling down, finding it, and following it to Harry Potter, in a way greatly resembling the use of a category. And, FYI: if you search for The Leaky Cauldron you'll just get redirected to Diagon Alley, precisely and effectively as all people who know nothing of the subject should get directed. None of the hodgepodge of either of the two ways I've listed before. -- Slarti ( 19  92 ) 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Time for a decision yet?JJJ999 05:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AFDs remain open for five days, so this should close on October 6. Otto4711 21:04, 5 October 2007 (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.