Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Llanview

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. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. I didn't find the "keep" !votes here that convincing. The "merge" !votes were stronger but there wasn't enough of them to slap a big purple tag on the article. However, I was still tempted to close this as "merge" and that would be my recommendation. Same goes for any other "fictional" city that isn't discussed extensively in secondary sources or at least isn't the setting for more then one show. (ie Riverdale). I would suggest that a merge discussion take place on the article's talk page and that those who advocate keeping this as a standalone article at least be open to the idea that this information might fit better in the main show's article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Llanview

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Only sources are episodes. Plot summary, in-universe, no secondary sources, no notability. Prod declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge the Overview section somewhere (e.g. the main TV article), the rest is such an amount of in-universe trivia (WP:WAF) where I don't see a point to keep anything. Agree with nom. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article represents a town from a show that lasted more than 40 years on television. There is not difference between Llanview and Gotham City. Rather than try and get it deleted, perhaps editors can search for sources before resorting to deletion. Casanova88 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article in question cites specific episodes, which are certainly citeable, just as much as a book is citeable. A book is property of a company and all 11,000 episodes are property of ABC/Walt Disney. So, I think it is citeable and it is a city that is still refrenced on General; Hospital in current continuity.Bmf777 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't been able to identify one article about a fictional city that has been rated better than C-class. And this article certainly doesn't look like it will ever even achieve that level of quality. I don't think that articles about fictional cities should include such content as a list of rooms in a particular motel which have been inhabited by various characters, nor a list of prisoners in the local prison, nor students at the local elementary school, nor a list of cities (some of which are on other continents) where former residents reside. Yet all of that, plus much more, is in this article. The whole article appears to be problematic from the perspective of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just wanted to chime in and say that it doesn't matter how long a series runs or how many episodes were in a series. If we were to look at episodes as sources, they'd be considered primary sources. Why? Because they were made by the people who created the series and anything that's released by people involved with the show are considered to be primary. They can't show notability for anything, although you can use them to back something up. (Although even then you're only supposed to use primary sources if you have an independent and reliable source to back it up!) In order to show notability you need to have multiple independent and reliable sources to show that this town has notability apart from the show. Make sure that you realize that notability is not inherited by the show taking place in this fictional town (WP:NOTINHERITED). If you want to keep the article then you need to come up with sources that aren't from the show or its producers. This would be something like magazine articles, books, or news spots that focused on the town. Again, it doesn't always matter how long a show has run. It matters more if you can show those independent and reliable sources to show that this town is notable. If it's run for 40 years then it should be a little easier to find said sources since there should be at least 3-4 sources to show this. If you do want this article to be kept, go find those sources rather than saying that everything should be notable because the show itself is notable. I don't mean to be harsh, but you'll get further with an argument backed up with reliable sources than arguments that are based around the idea of inherited notability and WP:ILIKEIT.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: You might want to look through Google books- I saw quite a few in there along the lines of this entry: [1] I've got a lot of schoolwork tonight, otherwise I'd look more myself, but I wanted to put my two cents in here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the notability guideline as there is no significant coverage (ie more than trivial mentions) in reliable third party sources (episodes are primary sources and thus not acceptable on WP if they are the only sources).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to One Life to Live the overview section that is wp:verifiable by primary sources. Diego (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2012 (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.