Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional locations in The Railway Series

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional locations in The Railway Series

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

I believe we are well into cruft territory here: this is all in-universe, of interest only to the fans, lacking decent secondary sourcing, and suffering from excessive detail. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the series as a whole is beyond question and a list of locations for such a geographically based work is equally obvious. The primary sources for this are substantial (especially the physical archive at Tywyn Wharf railway station), there are also adequate secondaries, mostly from Sibley, although I would remind editors that George and Christopher are different people to the Rev Wilbert, and so their works aren't primary either.

Mostly though, would this even get listed here if it was Batman? Primary-only sourcing is never a problem for US comics, but is regularly used as an excuse to delete UK material. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, if you are seriously suggesting that I have some sort of partiality here, well, I won't finish that thought. It's ridiculous. Also, I do not see why a "geographically based work" (read: a work of fiction set in a fictional universe) needs to have a list of those fictional locations as an accompanying article. "Secondaries"? where? Drmies (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is about you personally. But WP has a clear bias in favour of permitting (if not encouraging!) purely in-universe sourced articles for the US comics canon, yet holding UK fiction to the same level as real-world geography.

The best known substantial secondary sources for Thomas are those that are listed in this article already - however their rarity in print and ferocious pricing means that few editors have access to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This belongs on the Thomas the Tank Engine Wikia Page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the franchise is undoubtedly notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the locations within the franchise can not automatically be considered notable without multiple, independent reliable sources discussing them in depth, which they do not seem to have. Of the three sources currently present in the article, two of them are primary sources, which leaves the one by Brian Sibley. And, as that is a biography of the creator of the franchise, I'm going to hazard a guess that it does not actually go into the level of detail about the fictional locations as would be required to support the amount of cruft in this article. Regardless of what is in that book, however, it is still only a single source, and, so far, the only independent source seemingly available. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (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.