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. good luck finding a consensus here. I couldn't... Spartaz Humbug! 05:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coal Hill School[edit]

Coal Hill School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nowhere near notable enough. This location has only been used as a minor background, and that only in a very small number of stories Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the discussion from the Newman and Wood books? I'm also not sure that I see the distinction between significant coverage of the school qua school and significant coverage of the school as a symbol or reference. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It depends whether the quote by Newman represents all he has to say on the matter. The bit from Wood comes across as an attempt at fan continuity rather than addressing the narrative imperative, or the productive limitations (whichever was the dominant force). I shall see though if my library can supply either.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted bit is just his conclusion, after two paragraphs discussing the way that schools were generally portrayed at the time in British children's television and children's fiction in general. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: just noticed that the motto has in fact been removed - but I stand by the point that the location is not noteworthy enough. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: actually, it's four stories in three periods over the course of 51 years (and more in the coming weeks). I think that the discussion by Kim Newman indicates why this location is more than fancruft. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
what - the sheer speculation over what type of school it is? Eleventh Doctor (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point isn't whether it's a comprehensive or a secondary modern; the point is that it's not what Newman calls a "fantasy fee-paying school" like Greyfriars or Chiselbury. Newman talks about how Doctor Who sets itself apart from the fictional public-school tradition which still lives on in Hogwarts. If it comes across as "sheer speculation over what type of school it is", perhaps I should rework the relevant text. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleventh Doctor: There is more on the alleged motto at Talk:Coal Hill School#School arms. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Josiah Rowe: - wait, your comparing this to Hogwarts? Seriously?! There is literally no comparison. Nothing in any of the stories that we have seen gives any detail at all about the nature of the school. What has been revealed amounts to 4 sentences. 1) Susan went there, 2) Ian and Barbara taught there, 3) It was used as a base by the Daleks once, 4) Clara and Danny teach there. How on Earth you can pretend that this is like Hogwarts is beyond me.Eleventh Doctor (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleventh Doctor: No, I wasn't comparing Coal Hill to Hogwarts. Kim Newman, in the reliable source I found, contrasted Coal Hill with Hogwarts. I'll post the full quotation on the article's talk page, so you can see what I'm talking about. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The full quotation is now at Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation. The only reason I mentioned Hogwarts is because Newman did, in a source which I think meets WP:GNG's requirement of "significant coverage". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Markeer: The best cases for the "significant coverage" criterion, IMO, are the books by Newman and Tat Wood. YMMV on whether Newman's comparison of the setting to other children's television settings of the period and the traditions of the school story is sufficient to constitute "significant coverage". The Tat Wood article is admittedly more "fannish", but it's certainly detailed; it's a four-page sidebar about the school, based on the evidence shown on-screen and the British educational system of the period. The online links, however, are largely passing references. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that "numerous precedents" = consensus in general or "numerous precedents" =WP:OtherStuffExists? GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GraemeLeggett, it might very well mean WP:OtherStuffExists, that's been on my mind. But as long as the specific article in front of me seems to pass wikipedia's guidelines, I'm comfortable with my Keep opinion. Regarding OtherStuff - I'd be very interested to know if there's been any kind of discussion about location/setting articles. I've been on an extended wiki-vacation for some time so don't know if there's any kind of consensus on that subject or not.-Markeer 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's more or less what I was asking - has there been any discussion on common settings. Have there been more locations that might be in a similar boat, and where there might be examples to indicate policy/consensus. A quick rummage finds some unconsidered morsels (no related discussions). Thrushcroft Grange redirects to Wuthering Heights while Wuthering Heights (fictional location) is an independent article. "Bag End" redirects (without any fuss according to page history) to the Shire where it has a few paragraphs, Heorot is a separate article and not a redirect to Beowulf. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Coal Hill school is not a common setting though. If it was, I wouldn't have started this. In references to the sources - I don't think that they qualify as coverage of the school. For Remembrance and Day, the are only about the reaction to continuity reference in the episodes - not about the school itself. The only one which comes close is the attempt to compare it to other schools at the time on the basis of Unearthly Child, but since Unearthly Child reveals nothing about the school (the scenes only show us Ian and Barbara discussing Susan, and then Susan being shown as a mystery) I think this comparison is utterly meaningless. If the consensus is against me, fine - but I don't see enough information about the school, so I'm not going to withdraw this nomination. Eleventh Doctor (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth remembering that the question is not whether we think that there is enough information in a primary source (in this case, the TV episodes) to merit "significant coverage" in secondary sources, but whether such significant coverage in secondary sources exists. In this case, I think it does. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Into which episode? Because next week's episode is due to be set there. And it's a recurring location that's shown up over the course of decades. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That editing policy says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Deletion could be considered 'removal'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're having trouble counting, EleventhDoctor. It's a major setting in An Unearthly Child, Remembrance of the Daleks, "Into the Dalek" (several scenes in a good five-minute chunk) and next Saturday's "The Caretaker". There are also brief ("less than a minute") scenes set at the school in "Day of the Doctor", "Deep Breath" (in flashback, but it's new footage), and "Time Heist". That's 7 stories, not 4. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And then there's books, comics etc... Though that may begin to get ridiculous. Artw (talk) 03:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it couldn't have been — as the Radio Times reviewer noted, the episode linked the presence of the villain to the Doctor's repeated visits to Coal Hill, so the Doctor is "rectifying a problem he's caused". That wouldn't have worked with any other school (or any other location, really, except perhaps 76 Totter's Lane). You may not have noticed how the location was relevant, but fortunately a reliable source did. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Eheinr007: Peladon redirects to List of Doctor Who planets#P. Andoria redirects to List of Star Trek planets (A–B)#Andoria. Coal Hill School is not a planet; is there a redirect target you feel would be appropriate? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: What about the lengthy passage from the Newman book, excerpted in the article and given in full at Talk:Coal Hill School#Kim Newman quotation? Isn't that precisely the sort of out-of-universe discussion of the school you're looking for? And the Tat Wood book has a four-page sidebar about the school — admittedly from a fan perspective, but certainly significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply WP:GNG calls for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That, it seems to me, does not mean merely a paragraph, as with the Newman quotation, or a sidebar in Tat's book. To be sure of notability, I would want to see articles/chapters about Coal Hill School. The material you present could be better covered in the relevant story articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply — fair enough. The definition of "significant coverage" is, I suppose, up to each reader/editor to determine. But the Tat Wood sidebar incorporates information from both An Unearthly Child and Remembrance of the Daleks, and so would be a slightly odd fit in either story's article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply It is not up to each editor to determine what is "significant coverage": WP:SIGCOV specifies what is meant by "significant coverage" and any residual uncertainty should be determined by discussion leading to consensus. I vaguely know Tat, so I will excuse myself from RS discussion of the use of his works. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply' Sorry, what I should have said is that editors may differ on whether a given reference constitutes "significant coverage". The GNG says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." I interpret the Newman and Wood references as falling into that definition, but if consensus disagrees I will accept that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 12:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SIGCOV does not require chapters or articles. In any case, once we have any amount of well-documented material, we're no longer talking about outright deletion as merger is preferable. This is made fairly clear at WP:FAILN, "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Andrew (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2014 (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.
More