Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton in fiction

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. ✗plicit 13:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton in fiction[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)

A totally unreferenced list of trivia. Fails - take your pick, multiple choice answers allowed: WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:V... Ps. We also have a similar List of films set in Brighton which likely needs to go to... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been tagged for lack of sources for 14 years. An indiscriminate list of unencyclopedic trivia. AusLondonder (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources, no actual information on the topic as a whole, just a list of trivia. Regardless of any kind of potential notability on the topic, the current article has nothing to preserve. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This collection of original research, trivia and indiscriminate information has lacked sources for nearly fifteen years. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources, non-encyclopaedic list as per AusLondonder. --Whiteguru (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only on the basis on what harm does it do? I think it's a bit harsh to call the article trivial as I think it's actually quite interesting to see which books feature Brighton. I think it would be better if there was a category for "Brighton in fiction" which would be a useful subistitute for a person reasearching this topic. Having said all that, I have a question about references. How does a list article like this get references anyway?. For example, Brighton is mentioned in Pride and Prejudice, but should a reference be placed on this list page pointing to the page/pages in the actual book, or is the internal link to Pride and Prejudice enough? My point is that the lack of references seems to be a strong criteria for deletion, but I'm wondering how if it really matters? Seaweed (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You should take a look at WP:ATA, as "its harmless" and "its interesting" are both explicitly mentioned as arguments that should be avoided in an AFD discussion. As for sources, as this is essentially a list article, it would fall under the requirements of WP:LISTN. In short, the pieces of fiction themselves used to verify the information is not enough to establish notability for the topic, and there would need to be reliable, secondary sources discussing the topic as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seaweed Have you seen WP:ITSHARMLESS? And thank you for making me use this link, it's a very rare argument I never thought I'd actually see :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a work of fiction mentioning something is a primary source. Wikipedia needs to be built on secondary sources. That is sources that analize the mention of the thing. We lack such sources here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as most other editors have commented, Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and this article is substantially missing that. Does not meet WP:V, WP:OR, or even WP:NPOV without some sort of independent and reliable coverage. Even with some trivial coverage, the article would still fail to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:05, 21 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.