Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Harmon Institute of Technology

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 Redirect per consensus to Accepted. Content history will be intact at redirect page per GFDL and for mining. Not merging. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Harmon Institute of Technology

Wholly constitutive of plot, referenced solely to primary sources; no reliably sourced evidence of notability. Article appears to have had several attempts at redirection; apparently the subject of some personal attacks and incivility. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sub-article of the Accepted article or merge into the Accepted article. Many of the reviews [1] [2] for the film Accepted can be used as sources in this article. As far as fictional colleges go, I'd say this is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accepted. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accepted and protect it. The movie is of course notable and contains sufficient information about this college and it's hilarious acronym - the fictional college is not - the article is rammed chock full of original research and useless plot synopsis trivia. Neıl ☎ 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only going to say it once here: Oh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S," but if it's gotta be a contraction, it's "I-T-apostrophe-S." (Thanks, Strong Bad) Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Accepted but Do Not Merge - Information on this location can be adequately covered in the plot section. It doesn't hold sufficient notability as a fictional location to need it's own section in the Accepted article. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says? Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the movie article. While the movie is notable, the college isn't. Nearly all information contained in the article is plot trivia and it's written in a way that makes it seem as if it isn't even a fictional place. Even if the college was notable, it'd require a substantial rewrite. --clpo13_(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article clearly states the college is "fictional." Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only in the introductory paragraph. The rest of the article is written in an "in-universe" style. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. As might be expected, the "S.H.I.T." is not a real institution, but a joke made as part of the movie Accepted. Sorry, Rejected! Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it's not real is irrelevant. We have lots of articles on fictional institutions. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're smart; I like you. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are as bad as the characters in the film from Harmon college. Your kind of thinking is exactly what the theme of the movie sought to speak against. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real school, no need to merge. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is Starfleet Academy or many other fictional colleges and universities that are somehow escaping persecution from Jakezing. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but Star Trek is of much more importance then Accepted, wouldn't you agree? Star Trek defined a generation of people who never got a wife... --Jakezing (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not that it matters, though i was the one who tried to redirect it to accepted and ended up in a edit war to keep it that way. As i'v stated, no merit, could merge maybe.--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Most of the article is based off of the plot of the movie- no need for it to be separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a decision yet?--Jakezing (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions generally go for 5 days. Since this was opened on April 11, it should be closed on April 16. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all plot information can be covered in the film. The specific details of a film need to be supported by real-world context; otherwise, the film is available to be watched. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Following this logic, we should get rid of Wikipedia altogether, since all of the information is available elsewhere. If articles should be deleted just because the films they describe are available, this would be a pretty empty site. As has been said before, there are many fictional places/colleges/people here. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. Why are you all listening to the illiterate user who started all this? You are as bad as the characters in the movie who tried to shut down the college! Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to reread Wikipedia:Civility & WP:NPA. If your wondering why... calling somebody a illiterate user i is kinda, bad don't you agree and just makes you look so "Unprofessional" and makes less room to support, no?--Jakezing (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop calling people "illiterate" when they become worthy of such a distinction. For God's sake, the way you talk gives me a headache--honestly. The Queen should be beating you with her purse for butchering her language. Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content, not contributors, Dgmjr. --clpo13_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to adequately converse with contributors who ignore the simple rules of the English language. I am continually asked to read Wikipedia's rules and that is deemed acceptable; but when I ask someone to learn English, that is deemed not acceptable. Wow! Can you say, "double standard?" Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (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.