Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balliol College in fiction

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 lack of reliable sources in particular was not addressed by those advocating to keep the article. Sandstein 06:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balliol College in fiction

Delete - directory of loosely or non-associated topics. A list seeking to capture every mention of this college in passing from any source of fiction in which any random editor happens to encounter it. Otto4711 12:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a trivial topic. The article lacks references, and it may be original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Balliol College. I had never heard of it before, but it's a part of Oxford University. Like Radcliffe, it's not as well known as the parent institution. Mandsford 16:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was split from the college's article in November 2004. They don't want it. Otto4711 16:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently split as substantial enough to stand on it own; if they didnt want it, they would have deleted the contents. DGG (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh now. Oh come now sir. You've been through more than enough of these debates that you have to know that such a comment is disingenuous at best and at worst a deliberate attempt to mislead. You know as well as anyone how these articles form. Rather than edit war in the main article, an editor who understands that this is junk splits it off into one of these interminable lists. How many times has the creator of such an article commented in AFD that s/he split it off for just that reason? How often have we been told that the section was split off because an editor was trying to get the aricle to GA or FA status and the trivial pop references stood as an impediment to that worthy goal? How many people come in specifically to comment "whatever you do, don't merge"? For shame. This tactic is unworthy of you. Otto4711 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the information is salvageable and it is worthwhile as it provides us with an indication of the College's significance and influence, but what I would recommend is to add this section from another artilce to the Balliol College in Fiction article as an introduction and just have a See also section on the Balliol College article pointing the in fiction article. I also think that additional references would be helpful. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is yet another trivial dumping ground. Every mention of the college isn't notable. RobJ1981 17:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it claims to have references at http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/balliol-college-in-fiction/, that doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and none of the items are individually sourced. Violates WP:RS, WP:V and WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 17:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Listcruft, trivia, OR. Doctorfluffy 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read this essay. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop spamming that essay in several AFD's. It's both disruptive and it doesn't even apply. As pointed out by the editor Slashme in another AFD: listcruft is by definition non-notable, which is a perfectly proper reason for deletion.. It seems to me, that you are just trying to start problems with people that disagree with you. RobJ1981 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the many notable things about Balliol is surely notable--partly because of the very notable fiction that has been set there. Two or three of the items may not be significant, but the college is used as a setting for action or for characters for particular reasons. The article so be expanded so this can be pointed out. There are certainly references fro every details of at least a few of the works. I do not understand the reasons given for the nom: . First, the background of a principal character in a major work of fiction is not a loose association. Nor does it attempt to capture every mention--just the ones where there is involvement of it in important works worthy of WP articles. So what is the actual reason? -I think it might be the principled disapproval of every [ ] in fiction article, thinking the entire general concept non encyclopedic (in which case the course would be to change the guidelines to say so). DGG (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reliable sources, this is surely deleteable. Corvus cornix 22:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be the principled disapproval of every [ ] in fiction article... I think you might be better served to stop playing Kreskin and trying to divine reasons behind nominations that aren't there. I have never said that the concept of "X in fiction" is categorically unencyclopedic. Indeed, I have argued in support of a number of such articles, contributed to several and encouraged the development, with sourcing, of actual articles that discuss cultural phenomena. Sadly, these lists of "this one guy said Foo in a movie" or "this one fictional character mentioned he went to such-and-such college in one sentence of a 200-page book" or whatever are not sourced articles on a cultural phenomenon. And no, the fact that more than one author decided to list his fictional character as a fictional alumnus of Balliol (or in one instance "Baillie" which in the opinion of some editor was close enough) does not mean that the the fictional character is closely associated with other fictional alumni of the same school or that the presence of the fictional alumni creates any association between the two works of fiction. Otto4711 06:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly all of these examples are trivial mentions in dialogue. If there are any notable references they should be added to the main article. Crazysuit 22:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't a trivia drump; that's why WikiTrivia exists. Wikipedia is not a directory of every Balliol College mention ever made. There's a difference between writing the effect something had on popular culture and writing passing, trivial mentions. All the films and books are prominent for reasons greater than including the college, so it's a trivial intersection. There can never be reliable sources that discuss each dot point in detail, only the book or film itself, so it's an indiscriminate collection of info. And it's is a haven for [[WP:|original research]]. WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT#IINFO is non-negotiable and it violates WP:ATRIV and WP:RS. Spellcast 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the ground that Balliol College is not only a physical place of learning but invokes a collective consciousnes. What is important for this particular college are the literary associations which are an integral part of its social reputation. Oxford University derives its reputation, and indeed very existence, from the constituent colleges. It is not as if a college should be dismissed as being less well known than the university. The classic insider question to someone who went to Oxford is "Which college?" There are significant and enduring differences in culture as well as student mix, educational range and alumni career patterns. The reason that the fiction section was set up was as much to keep the growing main college page concise as to permit a focus on the literary references. Surely it is not a coincidence that so many Balliol people have gone on to pursue livelihoods in literature and the arts. This college is a special case. JPF 21:31, 4 November 2007 (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.