Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional towns and villages


 * 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 but split. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional towns and villages

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Similar articles have been deleted, article topic is too wide a subject for one article, topics in list are unrelated, except for having the quality of being fictional. Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 *  Weak Split Keep. I created the article, and it's interesting to me but I don't believe that it can stay how it is. It's not in such a bad shape as it is right now, but down the line as it starts filling with more and more items it's going to become a mess and be deleted anyway. Perhaps we could split each section into a new article along the lines of this: List of fictional city-states in literature. I've thought about doing this for a while but I wanted to see if anyone else thinks it should even be here.Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but consider split. The entries are related by the nature of what they fundamentally are: fictional cities and towns.  And that's all this list does, index articles by the shared type of subject, the most basic kind of list.  The entries in List of islands are not related beyond the fact that they are all islands.  As for the list's scope, as noted above, the solution for a list that is too broad is to split it into sublists, and that's just what has been done with the category that is parallel to this list, Category:Fictional populated places.  Which is an editing solution, not one calling for AFD.  postdlf (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but prune drastically. Only iconic places should be kept (e.g. Mayberry, Sunnydale), and one-offs like Pleasantville and Mos Eisley deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mos Eisley is no less iconic in science fiction because of the cantina scene, but the better solution regardless is to link the list of Star Wars cities and towns from this list (though maybe with one or two examples mentioned). postdlf (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but split per Postdlf. This could easily be expanded far beyond a reasonable size without getting beyond a reasonable scope; splitting by topic would permit us to include all the fictional settlements that would deserve to be included.  Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST. If you cannot read between the lines, this is a textbook example of something that can and should be dealt with through categories.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wedged between the lines is WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and split. Sooner or longer this will in fact become far too long and there are already several valid sub-lists. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/Split. I would lean to delete myself, but the fact that this article appears to have moderate support among other editors means I would be wrong to say it isn't of interest/relevant.  However, consider this article in a complete state (ie every fictional town listed), it would be a ridiculously long, and not very uesful article.  I think at minimum split, otherwise delete and make it into a category instead. Millermk90 (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've pretty much split all the sections into sub-articles and trimmed this article down to 3 examples in each article section with a {{main| tag on the top of each, at the very least this article should really never get much bigger than it is now. I'll try to stay on top of the sub-articles though, and weed out some not-quite-as-notable examples (I can already name a few at this point anyway) As long as they stay a manageable, and useful size, I can't really see a reason to delete them now. As I said before, I wanted to get a consensus /before/ I started pouring a lot of work into it (Because I've seen similar articles get deleted in the past) Ncboy2010 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2011 (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.