Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional locations in Family Guy


 * 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. The delete !votes make more sense, and are better grounded in our policies. Courcelles 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional locations in Family Guy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completey unsourced, this article has no references and citations. I doubt that this article is notable enough, it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 09:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Nested fictional locations within a fictional location? Snowball. Hell. Chance.--Shirt58 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This could only have value on a Wiki devoted exclusively to Family Guy. Strictly fancruft. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Burn with fire - a reliably sourced article on the town of Quahog is probably notable. A list of every location within the town? God no. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC) Struck !vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet of indef-blocked abusive puppetmaster User:Otto4711.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NOT and WP:GNG. The fictional universe of Family Guy has no coverage in third-party sources. Maybe some of the characters, but not the inanimate world itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft obviously— Chris! c / t 19:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Was never really a fan of the article. Gage (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- it's all been said. Poor sourcing, and excessive fan trivia. Reyk  YO!  19:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable spin-out of locations in a major fictional franchise. Most delete !votes fail WP:ATA, none indicate efforts to source locations per WP:BEFORE, and none have addressed the possibility of merging the content to other article(s) about the show. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Who the hell are you to declare that the people !voting to delete haven't done due diligence before forming their opinion? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * And you could also ask who the hell am I to remind you that civility also extends to AfDs?--Shirt58 (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "No sources" is an argument to avoid now? WP:BEFORE is just advice and not policy, but WP:BURDEN is policy and can't be dodged merely by attacking the votes of others. Nor can you somehow turn it inside out to place the burden of proof on the people challenging the unsourced material. Reyk  YO!  03:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BEFORE is advice about how to apply deletion policy, which says that "articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" can be deleted, not articles that don't currently have such sources. A valid argument for deletion should detail the thorough attempts that have been made to find such sources. And the requirement to consider alternatives to deletion, such as merging, is also policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have been unable to find reliable sources for this article.  Because there does not appear to be significant coverage in independent sources of this topic, then I feel this does not meet the WP:GNG.  This is essentially trivia, and WP is neither a directory nor an indiscriminate source of information. Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Background is a   significant part of a show, and for a major show it's reasonable to break it out if there is enough material.    DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why keep? This article has no citations and sources. JJ98 (Talk) 05:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNG shows notability of the series itself, and fictional elements of a notable series may be sourced back to the series itself. As DGG shares, when significant elements of a notable series would overburden the main article, it's reasonable (and guideline encouraged) to break them out if there is enough material.


 * Keep Notability of these elements is sourced to the notable series itself.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:45, 25 September 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.