Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties


 * 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. PeaceNT 14:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional counties

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Incredibly loosely associated set of topics. Unacceptable per WP:NOT. Eyrian 23:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Incredibly loosely? There are fictional people, fictional towns, fictional countries, fictional st... no, nobody would accept a fictional U.S. state.  A fictional county is the rural version of a fictional town, a means of avoiding a lawsuit.  Thus, William Faulkner can say, the story takes place in Mississippi, but Yoknapatawpha County is not a real Mississippi location, so don't sue me, okay?  Mandsford 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Give it time. --Eyrian 01:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See List of fictional U.S. states. FrozenPurpleCube 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - should be a category. Artw 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. County organization is not universal, and the use of it in fiction is notable. RandomCritic 02:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Counties are a known concept of local organization. Possibly split by country.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this is a marginally useful assemblage of information, certainly not merely a directory. older ≠ wiser 03:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The country a novel is set is is a loose association? As for the other stuff, yes, give the deletors time and they will try to remove everything dealing with the fictional world except the articles for the books and the authors, as if the themes and the settings were not important. I've said before that the intent is to remove them all, and been challenged, but I see it is now confirmed. Perhaps they might like to specific a few which hey think are good, if they think any are, or even a few which they think could be improved to be good.  This is a policy change, attempted by repeated afds. The policy itself could never get agreement. Once this is over, if there is any space before afd rounds  2, 3  and following, we need to work not just on getting the deleted ones improved and restored. but a clearer statement of policy that these articles are to be permitted and encouraged.
 * When I came to WP, I never imagined I would find myself defending popular culture articles. I thought I needed to improve and defend articles on more academic scholarship, and that's what I've mostly been doing. I thought the foundation of the encyclopedia, its basic core, was popular culture, and if anything was sound, that part was--not just the individual articles on individual books and movies and games, but the articles on themes and characters and basic plots. (and that the "serious-minded" people would need to expect to put up with that) Seems I was wrong, and a very persistent few want to destroy it, possibly under the impression that  themes and all that about works of art are unimportant. We need these articles or we lose our base.   DGG (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I thought it said "countries" as well, but about a COUNT-Y rather than COUNT-RY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 16:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * There's been no policy change. All we're seeing is unreferenced, trivia-laden articles get deleted. There is no prohibition on popular culture being sought. The problem is that these sorts of articles tend to attract solely unreferenced, trivial mentions. Cultural studies articles are absolutely acceptable, but they need to be referenced, just like any other article. Why on Earth should an analysis of plots and themes be permitted to escape from the requirements of verifiability? --Eyrian 05:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per list of loosely associated topics. Transcending across works of fiction to find similar things = trivia/loosely associated.  It is one thing to write about things with notability, but collecting bits and pieces from unrelated works of fiction and assembling them together is trivia (to me) and not encyclopedic Corpx 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Many articles attract "...solely unreferenced, trivial mentions." to delete any article which does so on sight is to throw the baby out with the bath water.KTo288 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. This has gone too far.  We are slowly dismantling Wikipedia's greatest strength above all other resources in the history of mankind.  This continued deletion of verifiable content that a handful of editors doesn't like is making Wikipedia worse.  This is valid per WP:LIST and it's not any of the things at WP:NOT. --JayHenry 18:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as others have pointed out above, there is nothing "loose" about the association between the topics and lists provide a way of navigating articles that is far superior over the use of categories (they allow more context, other sorting then A-Z and are more user friendly). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, a list of Fictional Counties seems very useful to me, and ideal content for WP. --RedHillian 21:57, 29 August 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.