Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional institutions


 * 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. We're split down the middle, with good arguments on both sides. - Krakatoa  Katie  08:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional institutions

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Incredibly loosely associated topics, ranging from Arkham Asylum for the Criminally Insane to the Academy of Inventors from Futurama. Unacceptable per WP:NOT. Apparently, any group of fictional people with a name can qualify. Eyrian 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep highly organized list, possibly could be split further, but that's not a deletion concern. FrozenPurpleCube 23:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are arguing that there is a tight association? How is this not a collection of loosely associated topics? What has Arkham got to do with the Academy of Inventors? --Eyrian 23:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 23:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. Is this a loosely-associated set of topics or isn't it? If it is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Eyrian 23:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? Please articulate your reasons, and don't just link to rules.  Your concerns merit possibly splitting into discrete lists that are more closely connected, not deleting.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because loosely-associated topics isn't what Wikipedia is about. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information, and lists of loosely-associated topics do not provide that. --Eyrian 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But this list does provide information. Don't you see it there?  Or are you reading some other page? Institution X is found in media Work Y.  Clearly informative to me.  Could perhaps be a bit more detailed, might work better as several different lists, but hardly what I would call loosely-associated within those sub-sets.   FrozenPurpleCube 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What's informative to you doesn't matter. What matters is that there are rules about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia does not, for instance, contain how-to information, because that is not within its scope. Just as collections of loosely-associated topics such as this do not belong. --Eyrian 02:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:BURO. Arguing the rules must be followed because they are the rules is not convincing. Please recognize the spirit of the rules as being the foremost concern, not the literal interpretation of them.  (And there are arguments about what's a HOW-TO and what's not.  Go check out some older AFD's if you want to see.) FrozenPurpleCube 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The same page says Wikpedia is not "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". And any list provides information. Loosely associated topics get deleted because they are rarely useful.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And??? Are you not aware that the BURO part is providing a context for which any rules should be judged?  And note how undescriptive the loosely associated section is.  Quotations and aphorisms are listed, but not fictional companies, countries or institutions.  So pardon me for saying you need an argument that it's not useful, not just saying "oh but loosely associated topics are rarely useful" .  That may be true, but it's missing the connection to the case at hand.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're confusing a rule with a principle. This isn't "The article forgot to dot an 'i' and cross a 't'", this article is fundamentally not within the specified scope of what Wikipedia is. The spirit of the rule is that Wikipedia doesn't contain directories of loosely associated topics. And this violates that. --Eyrian 04:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the "loosely associated" argument is sort of weakened by the fact that there is specific criteria, that is accurately described by a given word, which has a clear definition. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 06:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That definition seems to be pretty broad to me. --Eyrian 06:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the spirit of the rule is meant to describe things which are problems for Wikipedia by not being encyclopedic. You haven't just failed to convince me there's a problem, you've not even really tried.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Too loosely associated, too vast to make a useful list.  Citi Cat  ♫ 23:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Citicat, far too broad a criterion to be a useful list. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Only on Wikipedia... for every person who is obsessed with building up gigantic lists of fictional things, and there is another who is equally obsessed with tearing them down. The rest of us enjoy watching the fight.  Mandsford 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - celarly neds to be dealt with as a category. Artw 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or Split into several different lists, mutually linked. There's no intrinsic objection to the content, however; this nomination is, like others of its sort, an incredibly bad idea masquerading as "policy".  In fact Wikipedia policy doesn't and shouldn't forbid lists of this type. RandomCritic 02:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and split. I agree that combining these all into a single list, named so approximately, was not a good idea. Of course, if it were, split, i expect people to say the individual types are not ssubstantial enough to be significant. Still, I'd rather ahave a small number of better focused articles.DGG (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Divide and conquer is a great way to get something deleted. Little articles that seem insignificant on their own are a lot easier to get deleted than one cohesive article. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 06:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * packaging things that really belong separately into a article where they dont quite fit doesn't help either. But that is a question to be decided by the editors, after the community decides, as I suppose it will, that the overall topic/topics is encyclopedic.DGG (talk) 01:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that a couple of subsections have since been demerged into their own articles after they grew to the point where they were worthy of them. You can see such links of "For X, see X" in the lists, e.g. political parties and terrorist organizations. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Manticore. Wl219 05:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article fills a gap for fictional things that are in categories equally notable to other fictional things (e.g. List of fictional schools, List of fictional presidents, List of fictional brands, List of fictional companies). As for breadth, here's Wiktionary's entry on the word "institution":
 * noun 1. An established organisation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, culture or the care of the destitute, poor etc.
 * The argument a la "this list can contain anything as long as it is (insert set of defined criteria)" would seem to miss its mark -- and especially since a number of otherwise qualified entities are listed as exceptions at the very beginning.
 * -Keith D. Tyler &para; 06:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hopefully some sections can be spun off eventually.(RookZERO 04:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Keep per Manticore. Though the concept behind it seems tenuous, the list turned out well. There are plenty of blue links, the list makes good use of the available space, and it doesn't seem to contain spam or low-quality stuff. EdJohnston 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable list; agree that it's much better represented as a category or series of categories -- Samir 03:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per samir, there's so many it jsut wouldnt work --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  20:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with EdJohnston in that the list is unintuively maintainable and functional. It gives more information easier than a category or twenty on the subject would. This article would be too broad to be useful, as it's been said to be, if it was just a massive and completely unstructured list, but each section is pleasantly narrow. --Kizor 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list seems to be excessively complex and, as stated before me, unmaintainable. I really don't see the connection between Arkham Asylum, Stargate Command, S.P.E.W., Get Rid of Slimy Girls, the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo, and most of the other institutions on this list. The list may be organized, but it still is hard to control and sprawls across way too many topical areas. Even within the smaller organized lists, the content is not necessarily useful or even related- what do G.R.O.S.S., the Loyal Order of Water Buffalo and the Order of the Phoenix really have to do with each other anyway? It also violates WP:NOT; the institutions, organizations, etc. in this article are largely unrelated and far too numerous to be useful. --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Each section is made useless by the presence of the other sections? --Kizor 00:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In a way,yes - this list is way too long, and the importance of the individual sections is undermined by the general indiscriminancy of the article. Hospitals, prisons, and asylums are not in the same category as government agencies, activist groups, and brotherly orders - in fact, government agencies, activist groups, and brotherly orders are all separate. This list just lumps them all together as "fictional institutions". But as I said, that's not the only thing. The sections are also indiscriminant within themselves (note what I mentioned about the "Brotherly Orders" section). This is a really long and indiscriminate list, and as I stated before, a violation of WP:NOT by that. --TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:33, 4 September 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.