Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional schools (3rd nomination)

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. There is a reason that our notability guideline when discussing lists notes that our community is frequently divided on how to treat lists. That divide was on display in this AfD. Those who suggest that this article should be deleted, suggest that the list has ill-defined criteria, duplicates content found in other lists in ways that are not helpful, and lack sources necessary to establish independent notability. Those advocating keep note that lists provide different kinds of value to our readers compared to categories, that the need for inclusion criteria to be tightened and implemented or for other lists to be merged, is not a reason on its own to delete, and that there is verifiable information found on the topic. Ultimately this view had the consensus of participating editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional schools[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a list article which could easily run to hundreds of pages, and without being useful. An encyclopaedia isn't a search engine. This has been in CAT:NN for 4 years. No consensus in 2007, decision to delete at 2010 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's rationales are ludicrous. Not a search engine? So we should delete all lists, categories, navigational templates and the search function? That's nonsense. The key point is whether the list is notable per WP:LISTN and this one clearly passes. As we're apparently not a search engine, I won't list any sources yet; that's an exercise for the reader. This includes the nominator as they don't seem to have studied the topic in any detail, as required by WP:BEFORE. If they had done, they would have noticed that the famous Hogwarts isn't in the list because there's a separate one for magic schools. 5 points from Slytherin! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew, I'm actually somewhat with you--but I wish you hadn't just dumped a bunch of citations in that article without actually citing anything. If you want to argue that it passes per LISNT, you need to prove that "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and while it is possible that those books (or some of them? what The Fictional Dimension of the School Shooting Discourse is supposed to prove is anyone's guess) do that, you submit no evidence that this is happening. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the nominator's job to make a case and, per WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.". It doesn't appear that any of this has been done and, instead, we get some nonsense about search engines. Insofar as I have done anything at all, this is a gratuitous bonus. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit misleading to add them as sources unless you've confirmed that they each support the presence of specific entries currently in the list. I propose renaming the section to "Further reading" otherwise. pburka (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the nominator and myself anticipate that the list will be expanded to contain many more entries. What I've done at this stage is some broad strokes to help improve the page's foundations. I favour putting lists of sources in the References section at the outset to facilitate addition of citations. I sometimes use list-defined references but otherwise establish a separate list of sources which can then be cited inline using {{sfn}} short footnotes. Such sources can be considered general references, which are quite valid:
A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular text in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section ... General reference sections are most likely to be found in underdeveloped articles ...The appearance of a general references section is the same as those given above in the sections on short citation ...

The sources I listed have been selected especially to demonstrate that the topic passes WP:LISTN which, as explained above, is the key point in this discussion. As they are substantial and cover numerous schools, we should expect them to be used to cite multiple entries and so are best placed together in the references rather than scattered across the entries. We are not required to fully develop the page at this stage because AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Everything listed at Category:Fictional schools and perhaps the ones at Category:Fictional universities and colleges should be included here. A list article is always more useful than a category. Dream Focus 20:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. WP:NOTUSEFUL WP:NOTPAPER etc. Has the topic being discussed as a group in reliable sources? It sure has: Global TV, Bustle, Vulture, The Guardian, Manchester University Press, Journal of Gender and Education. pburka (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Keeps. // Timothy :: talk 23:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. I don't think the nominator makes a strong case here... — Hunter Kahn 23:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources already listed on the page — American Boarding School Fiction, 1928-1981, Happiest Days: The Public Schools in English Fiction, "The Secondary School in Post‐war Fiction" — indicate that "schools in fiction" are talked about as a set. I don't know if they specifically discuss "fictional schools" as opposed to "real schools used in fiction" but I think it's likely that coverage exists. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Soft redirect to an appropriate category. Schools are so ubiquitous in society that finding them in fiction is unsurprising. Finding sources that discuss fictional schools is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that a list is appropriate. This list collects no information other than simple existence. Moreover, with only 3 exceptions (of highly questionable notability themselves), the articles linked to aren't about the schools, but rather the works that contain them. Most of the category entries are redirects to associated works. Some are hoaxes rather than entities in works of fiction. A category is much more useful than a list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deacon Vorbis. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DV's point is that we should be using categories instead – presumably categories like Fictional schools. But the relevant guideline, WP:CLN, makes it quite clear that we don't delete lists to favour categories because lists are superior in some ways. In particular, lists can cite sources whereas categories make no provision for this. Lists are therefore superior when the notability of the topic is in question, as in this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep why hasn't arbcon made a topic ban for listing schools at afd? Its been 16 years since the school deletion wars have been running. 2A01:4C8:54:47B6:31F2:7871:7527:B20C (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many fictional schools there is not really any function to this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal While I do find it amusing that two of the most common deletion arguments for lists are that they're too long and too short, having done some cleanup on this particular list, I propose that its real problem is that its content is all duplicated elsewhere:

School and university in literature, School story, and Campus novel each include much more comprehensive lists of schools or universities in literature,
List of television series about school includes exactly what it claims,
List of fictional magic schools covers the Hogwartses and Unseens, and
List of fictional British and Irish universities has its own inclusion criteria.

I don't think the list we're discussing brings much new to the table. Therefore I propose that we strip out all ten actual entries, leaving only the structure intact, and move the page from List of fictional schools to Lists of fictional schools and universities, neatly converting it into a list of lists, which could certainly help organize this sprawling subject. pburka (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. The page in question started as a spinoff from military academy and, at its peak, had lots of them. If we wanted a summary page then it might be best to return this one to the military academy aspect and split off the summary level idea. Anyway, this is not a matter for AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I hadn't dug deeply into the history. This page has seen some things. Clearly the page was misnamed at that time, but there might be some salvageable content there. pburka (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't even misnamed: Page move on 1 December 2016. pburka (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per available resources and based on Google search.DMySon 06:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hard to imagine how this list could actually help someone. I mean, really. Serves as much purpose as any other List of fictional x articles, which is negligible. These lists just grow indiscriminately and belong on TVTropes or Wikia, not here. I realize this is a losing battle but that's my piece. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with User:El cid, el campeador. These articles are impossible to maintain with any verifiability, and provide very little value that isn't much more reliable in the category system. It would be acceptable to soft redirect to Category:Fictional educational institutions. Jontesta (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. Categories are not verifiable because they do not have citations. Lists are verifiable because they can and do. See also WP:CLN which explains that we don't delete one navigational strucrure to favour another. There is therefore no policy basis for the !votes of Jontesta, and El Cid. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards, if not outright false. This list doesn't have any citations, and most lists like it never do. That's why they feature so many problems with verifiability and original research. It becomes easy to slip in unverified entries, let alone several unverified statements that might be completely false. Without citations or any basic limit to addition, these lists are frequently plagued with problems, if they survive at AFD at all. Such is the case with this heavily unverified list.

Please do not misstate my or other editors' positions, let alone Wikpiedia policy. The question of having a list or a category are completely independent, and my offering a compromise to work on a comparable category shouldn't be used to then piggyback your "list" argument on my "category" compromise. In practice, the category Category:Fictional schools is full of articles with third party sources, which means there's already more fact-checking than this list to prevent complete falsehoods. Third party sources are the whole basis of Wikipedia, and at least the text and associated categories of those articles can be fact-checked against some reliable expert. Compare that to the complete dearth of experts on "list of fictional school buses", because there's no third party who has covered this subject, and no one who can help us sort fact from fabrication. (There's not even a meticulous editor who has dedicated their original research to knowing all the fictional schools, not that we could use that as a workable standard for Wikipedia anyway.)

In case the policy basis for deletion isn't clear, look at the lack of sources to meet even just WP:V, let alone WP:OR and WP:GNG. If you sincerely believe this article passes those policies, you'd do a lot more by actually finding third party sources than by arguing with every comment you disagree with. Jontesta (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson, I don't believe I mentioned categories once in my statement. If I'm wrong please let me know. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. However your rationale was essentially that it's WP:NOTUSEFUL. pburka (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pburka et al, as sourcing has been identified. Restructuring/ renaming is routine clean-up. A parent lists of lists might be appropriate as well, but zero reason to delete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. There appears to be a not insignificant amount of fictional schools that have Wikipedia articles, making this list merited as long as it consists only of fully sourced entries/bluelinks._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (first choice) or Delete second choice - Regarding comments above about there being extant Wikipedia articles about fictional schools, from the links in this article, I count two: Starfleet Academy and Miskatonic University. The others are redirects or articles about books named after schools (regardless of whether the article talks about the school itself at all), which seems quite different. But there are also the sub-articles to deal with: List of fictional magic schools and List of fictional British and Irish universities. Rather than send both of them to AfD, why not merge the notable entries together? I count about 4 in the first and 1 in the second. Hmmm. Now that I write it out, a list of 7 isn't so exciting, especially considering how much people seem to want to pack these lists with trivia. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly more than Rhododendrites supposes – Grange Hill and St Trinian's School are both quite famous in the UK, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. You just linked to an article about a TV series and a comic strip series. Neither article is about a fictional school but a work of fiction titled after a school. It's the same as linking to any other fictional work that has a school in it -- just not in the title. By that logic, we could look at the titles of any fiction and come up with lists based on the kind of thing in the title. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:46, 8 August 2020 (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.