Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion Hotel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Proto::► 11:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperion Hotel[edit]
- Delete as fancruft, fails to claim notabilty, also WP:NOT a repository of places in a tv show, also fails WP:V, and WP:CITE to name a few KnightLago 22:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is as part of a notable show, WP:NOT doesn't exclude places in a TV show, feel free to tag with unreferenced if you want. I wouldn't oppose a merger to a single page though. FrozenPurpleCube 23:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is not just another random 'place in a TV show', but an important location that appears in many many episodes, in a very notable show. it is impractical to delete all location articles related to TV series just because some might like to see a Wikipedia that ignores popular culture. Wikipedia is not Encyclopædia Britannica, and can deal with popular culture if it is non-point-of-view, verifiable and not involving original research. This article's referencing can potentially be improved, there is no real justification for deletion based on official deletion policy. A deeper understanding of Hyperion Hotel is crucial for a deeper understanding of Angel, just like to we need an article for Central Perk to deepen understanding of Friends. - Paxomen 00:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. The show is notable. A fictional hotel is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this hotel, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are available on Angel and Buffy. For example, a regularly produced magazine, which has had articles on the Hyperion Hotel. I'd add them as references if I knew what issues, but I'm sure somebody has them. And here: [1]. A first-party documentary enough for you? FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are a great start. Use them in the article. Remove all the WP:OR and other non verifiable information. But as I have said on other pages regarding this. These articles all fail WP:V and WP:NOR as they stand. KnightLago 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd try but I haven't seen the documentary, and I'm not going to buy a DVD set just to update an article on a DVD series. Or hunt down some old magazines. I'll just hope somebody at the the Buffyverse Wikiproject will take up the job. But the fact is, they can, thus I see no reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be able to help out in this regard, I have access to the mags/DVDs. To start with, I'll add this text:
- "Angel Investigations found a new base from the episode, "Are You Now or Have You Ever Been". Angel Production Designer, Stuart Blatt outlined the new base: "An old hotel, something [the writers] could use to evoke the past of Los Angeles and some of Angel's history, something kind of creepy and spooky but not too dark because they didn't want something depressing, it's called the Hyperion Hotel. It's based on many hotels in Los Angeles...Angel lived in a larger suite in the hotel, like a honeymoon suite, the producers wanted Angel to have enough room to relax and get away from it all, do a little pondering, a little brooding, a little research. Every once in a while someone will come up to have a little conversation." ("Inside the Agency" featurette Angel Season 2 DVD set, disc 3 (2002).) - Paxomen 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be able to help out in this regard, I have access to the mags/DVDs. To start with, I'll add this text:
- I'd try but I haven't seen the documentary, and I'm not going to buy a DVD set just to update an article on a DVD series. Or hunt down some old magazines. I'll just hope somebody at the the Buffyverse Wikiproject will take up the job. But the fact is, they can, thus I see no reason to delete. FrozenPurpleCube 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are a great start. Use them in the article. Remove all the WP:OR and other non verifiable information. But as I have said on other pages regarding this. These articles all fail WP:V and WP:NOR as they stand. KnightLago 16:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources are available on Angel and Buffy. For example, a regularly produced magazine, which has had articles on the Hyperion Hotel. I'd add them as references if I knew what issues, but I'm sure somebody has them. And here: [1]. A first-party documentary enough for you? FrozenPurpleCube 14:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article fails to claim notability in anyway. From WP:N, "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. The show is notable. A fictional hotel is not. And straight from WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Where can I check a reliable source about this article? This article also fails Wikipedia's no original research policy, as the only place this information comes from is original research. I agree that this is not the Encyclopedia Britannica, and I welcome popular culture, but, only popular culture that is verifiable and not involving original research. Again, all of the above arguments have focused on the notability of the show and not this hotel, which the article is about. KnightLago 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see KnightLago's logic in putting Buffy fictional locations up for deletion when he's updating the page for Central Perk, the fictional coffee shop on Friends. Why is Central Perk treated differently? Static Universe 07:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because if you read the above comment by Paxomen he argues for the keeping of this article because of Central Perk. I went to Central Perk and tried to see what sources I could find before I nominated it for deletion. I found a few so I cited them. I am still thinking about nominating the article and the other places in the friends universe when this ends. You are attacking me and my edits because you can not find a logical reason to keep this article or the others in the face of Wikipedia policy. KnightLago 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. If it is notable in the Buffyverse then give it an article at the Buffy Wiki or the Buffy Wikia. In this universe, it is a set in some studio. --maclean 07:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These locations are notable as crucial locations in super-notable series. But improve them by citing where information is coming from (e.g. footnotes on episodes). - Buffyverse 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per general precedent regarding notable fictional places in literature, movies, and television. --MCB 07:19, 6 January 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.