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. Most people (including those preferring to keep) felt this list included too many schools, but no options were presented by what criteria this list should be cleaned up and if this was even possible. The deletion rationales were usually based on policies, whereas at least three (the majority) of the keeps referred to NOHARM and INTERESTING. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional schools[edit]

List of fictional schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List which fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. The information in this list should be sourced for verification, and per WP:BURDEN, sources should be cited per each entry, and nothing's been done to this effect since the last AFD (3 years ago, ended with no consensus). There's no apparent inclusion criteria either. Claritas § 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- fails WP:V because nothing is sourced and hasn't been for years, and fails WP:NOTDIR by such a huge margin that, if certain theories of the structure of the universe are correct, it actually loops around and fails it from the other side. Reyk _YO! 05:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable plot elements central to notable work are a suitable subject for a list. A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. If not all the schools are central, that can be discussed on the talk p. of the article. The sources in most cases seem remarkably obvious, but it can certainly be made explict that South Park Elementary in a plot element in South Park, or University of Suffolk in Nice Work DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DGG made a last-minute comment in favor of the article, will relist for more consensus. JForget 02:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Stupid, a waste of time to even read much less contribute to, only a few are notable, every story involving young people is going to mention the name of a school, etc., etc. .... but having said all that, "List of fictional whatever" articles are common on WP, no reason to delete this one, sources would not improve it and finding them would be a further waste of time. Is someone going to start a list of fictional kitchens? Wolfview (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you agree with all my reasons for deletion, but just want to keep it because "it doesn't do any harm" ? Claritas § 06:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't do any harm. Some people must have thought it worthwhile or else it wouldn't have been created and added to, whatever you and I think about the topic. Wolfview (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I do not necessarily object to "List of fictional whatever", however, WP:V is not optional. If someone wants to userfy the list and add some references, I would probably recommend "keep" next time around. Location (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article would be improved by finding secondary sources that say the kids in such and such story went to such and such school. On the other hand it would be if it was limited to cases where the school itself has an article here. But that doesn't seem to be how WP works. Nobody's going to hang around and remove trivia. Wolfview (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on your thinking here. Are you suggesting that WP:V or WP:RS are optional in this case? Location (talk) 05:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Each work of fiction can serve as its own source, in a trivial case like this. What would be the benefit of finding a second source that said the kids in Little House on the Prairie went to a school named whatever? Wolfview (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the benefit of a citation for an entry is to verify that was is stated is true. Most of these cannot be verified just by looking at the relevant wikilink. In fact, none of the first seven schools listed are mentioned in the articles to which they are linked. I didn't check beyond that. Location (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Personally, I find the list rather entertaining and an interesting overview of the naming conventions of mass media. Even though secondary sources may be hard to come by, I vote to keep it. Mark Sublette (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP's purpose is to provide data for interesting overviews. Wolfview (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete can't be verified without synthesizing original research from Different primary sources. No secondary source addresses this topic directly and in detail. Keeping in mind that AFD is not a vote I found Wolfview to provide a strong argument for deleting, not keeping. (By the same token, if I said "amazing article that meets all policies, but I hate it, delete it", I think that would lend more to a consensus that the article meets all the policies.) Shooterwalker (talk) 14:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per argument by Shooterwalker and WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT (yeah, I know the latter is an essay).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One list. Hundreds of entries. Zero reliable sources. Extremely unlikely that reliable independent sources exist for 99+% of these, and even in the unlikely event that someone had the time and energy to clean it up and find the few sourcable ones, it would only be a matter of time before it was back to its present state again. A well-written prose article on how schools are treated in fiction would be a great article (the closest thing we have that I know of is School story), but this as it stands is unsourcable trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indiscriminate collection of trivia. Can never be complete, since nearly every book, film, TV programme, cartoon, has a school somewhere, and would serve little purpose if it was complete. Gwinva (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree with Gwinva above; it's just a bit too indiscriminate and unfocused (as I have already said with similar now-deleted lists). –MuZemike 23:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is a notable fictional topic, and the list, if properly referenced, made verifiable and limited to notable entries, makes perfect sense. It is not an indiscriminate subject nor a random intersection (as fictions like Harry Potter or South Park indicate). The current state of the list is not an argument to delete, because deletion policy mandates not to delete if the problem can be solved by editing -which is the case here. --Cyclopia^talk 00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nothing gained by destroying it. It isn't harming anything. Those who worked on it, don't need their work destroyed, simply because someone doesn't like it. If you sincerely doubt any of the information listed is 100% correct, then just Google for the name of the series and the name of the school, and something will surely pop up. You don't need sources listed for every single thing. Dream Focus 06:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of notable fictional schools (e.g. Hogwarts) is not in question, so WP:MADEUP does not apply at all. That said, widespread treatment of fictional schools and, in general, of school fiction as a subject exists, see [1], [2], [3] , [4] , [5]. --Cyclopia^talk 11:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st, 2nd, and 5th of those are very impressive references (I'm not that sure of #3 &$). I think this shows that Gavin's argument above is a wild guess, and essentially equivalent to I NEVER HEARD OF IT. How can one assert that it has "never been used outside WP" without looking? and using the same delete rationale seems to be used indiscriminately for many articles, apparently without caring whether its true for false. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional schools is far too general and too broad in scope have any value. (WP:SALAT) Fictional schools are a dime a dozen and exist in just about every fictional work dealing with children, especially those set in their own fictional universe. The list itself is nothing more than trivia based on primary sources and does not fulfill the encyclopedic purposes of a list (such as an index of articles). If we created wikilinks using the names of the fictional schools, the majority of them would be redlinks with no hope of having articles per the inclusion criteria. —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is another argument based merely on issues (i.e. non notable entries) that can be dealt with editing, not deletion. We have almost 40 fictional schools deemed notable by the community. This sounds just about the right number for a list -not hundreds, not two or three. Again, there is nothing indiscriminate, the inclusion criteria is very clear. --Cyclopia^talk 14:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are those schools really notable? Because looking at five random articles, none of them have a singe reliable third-party source between them and would definitely fail WP:NOTE. At best, you may have 5 or 6 notable fictional schools. That is not enough for a stand alone list, but good to include in an article about schools in fiction, which this list is not about. —Farix (t | c) 14:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.