Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blenheim Palace in film and media

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. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blenheim Palace in film and media[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)

PROD removed by creator with rationale of "Absurd nomination, this a UNESCO world heritage site, dependent on filming and publicity for its survival. As was discussed on the talk page, listing filming on the site, would swamp the main page. Where are these ridiculous nominations coming from?" Creator states on their talk page "That was a page I created 12 years ago as a dump for all the dull information on the Blenheim Palace page when I re-wrote it" - accurately reflecting the unencyclopedic content of this article. Article violates WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any encyclopedic content should be in the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: stupid nomination: This is a time-wasting nomination. Of course, an important UNESCO World Heritage site needs a page to cover its innumerable appearances in film and literature. Otherwise, the main page would be swamped with trivia and adverts and no one would bother to read it. So far, the palace's appearance in some 33 films is listed, I could double that in a second if I felt so inclined, but I don't! Giano (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that this content is 'trivia and adverts'? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't find sufficient cause for deletion. This palace is famous. The filmography and references meet WP:BASIC --Whiteguru (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not the greatest page in the world, but I don't like these spin-offs from the main article being picked off at afd. I don't see the policies quoted apply. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They shouldn't be spun off. Any relevant encyclopedic content should be kept at the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's very much a minority view, with little support in policy. See WP:SUMMARY in particular. Johnbod (talk) 15:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The example given at WP:SUMMARY is World War II. The biggest event of the 20th century. Not a landmark. Recent consensus has in fact been that landmarks do not need these kind of seperate, poor quality articles, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower of London in popular culture. AusLondonder (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)... What is the point you are making that this is the THIRD time the article has been nominated, other than there are people who are pushing their preferences regardless of previous consensus? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – By virtue of the length of the article on the house itself (6k+ words; per Wikipedia:Prosesize, I think), splitting off mentions of appearances in popular media seems justifiable, although I can imagine more succinct mentions being viable if the decision were to Merge. The articles on other equally photographed/video'd houses, in my experience, are far smaller (e.g. Syon House at 1.8k+ and Castle Howard at 1.5k+), where media mentions are listed with greater succinctness and equal lack of referencing to those here. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm suggesting. Any useful, encyclopedic content should be at the main article. A lot of this article is a load of crap. AusLondonder (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blenheim Palace is exceptional as a location and as an article and Blenheim Palace in film and media is independently notable: Blenheim Palace makes most TV and film appearances, Blenheim... the ultimate movie palace, Blenheim Palace’s new film trail, Black Lake filming location, Blenheim Art Foundation, What films have been filmed at Blenheim Palace?. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TNT applies; this clearly is a TVTrope-like list of WP:TRIVIA, poorly referenced, failing WP:GNG/WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:IPC. While sources found by Johnuniq suggest we could write something about this topic, nothing in this WP:ORish mess is redeemable. The argument about split is also wrong, as the Blenheim Palace article doesn't even have a IPC section yet. First, such a section should be written, then we can consider splitting something out. And no, a list of trivia about which works this palace appeared in is simply not encyclopedic. PS. Also, the title is terrible. Film and media? Film is part of media. If kept, this needs to be renamed to Blenheim Palace in popular culture. (Of course, the best solution would be to write a new article under that topic and move on). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SPLIT; Blenheim Palace is not a film/video/television/advertisment location but a major historical and architectual building. Merging the content from the nominated article to the main would detract from that. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 12:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don’t disagree with the proposer that this type of “X in media” articles tend to be of pretty poor quality. However, we shouldn’t ignore the obsessive desire on the part of some editors - often, but by no means always, IPs - to add “Appearances in media” trivia to a whole range of articles about buildings. I once spent ages arguing with another editor over whether the [non]-appearance of Chequers in Ali G Indahouse should be mentioned in the Chequers article. The BT Tower is a good example of what you get if you leave a “Popular culture” section in the main article, although it’s actually better-cited than many. So, if many editors want media appearances to feature somewhere, I can see the argument for stand-alone summaries. They should still be cited, however, and even here a degree of discrimination should be applied. KJP1 (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely blown away by this argument. "We should keep poor quality, unencyclopedic nonsense on the project because of obsessive IPs". AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not actually what I, or others, have said. KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You literally started your comment by stating that you did not disagree with me but that certain editors "obsessively" add inappropriate and irrelevant content so we should give them space to do so. I disagree with that part. I'm saying inappropriate and irrelevant content should be removed. We're an encyclopedia not a webhost for random trivia. I'm happy to watch the main article and encourage others to do so and remove inappropriate and irrelevant content. AusLondonder (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AusLondonder - I’m not arguing over your misunderstanding/misconstruing what I, and others, have said. You’ve made your proposal, now let other editors add their views. Presently, your proposal is clearly not enjoying anything like majority support. KJP1 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the article about the palace. It's a fun list, but mainly too trivial for Wikipedia. But why delete it when someone might be able to salvage something from it? This topic has potential - let's make it painless for future editors to compose something about this.-

GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mainly per Johnuniq. There are multiple sources discussing this topic. Also the main article is long and could readily be lengthened further; a split of this nature makes sense. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2022 (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.