Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional radio stations (2nd 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 no consensus. Appears to have a clear scope, but arguments concerning its possibly trivial nature do have some merit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, umaintainable list. Whilst the article lead claims that its a list of notable radio stations, it blatantly isn't as the vast majority of entries don't and never will have their own articles. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List of trivia. Any work of fiction set in modern times might mention the call letters of a radio station. That does not make them "notable" as the first sentence of this article claims. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- completely trivial list. This is not 2007 anymore; we have standards now. Reyk _YO! 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right - we require more than personal opinion here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was more thinking adequate sourcing and some demonstration of notability. Reyk _YO! 10:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have all that. Your opinion of "completely trivial" is, however, completely lacking in supporting evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an article on radio in fiction would probably be fascinating, but this is trivia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate and trivial. Getting mentioned in one fictional work does not make something notable enough to be enshrined in a list. Edison (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Chris!_c/t 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikia Annex 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many cases where the radio station is not incidental but is the main focus of the fictional work, such as WKRP in Cincinnati, WOLD, WUSA and Radio Active. Per WP:CLS, a list is a valid way of assisting navigation to these. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^comment 17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Trivial, unencyclopedic list of non-notable things. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, I agree with the nominator, by far the most of these entries look like they'll never get much more than an entry in this list, let alone their own articles. JIP | Talk 07:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is our policy to keep the good bits, even if we don't like it all. I have pruned the list to demonstrate the use of ordinary editing rather than wholesale deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I am withdrawing my delete vote. JIP | Talk 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In nearly all cases, the names of the radio stations would not be mentioned in the main article of their work of fiction because they are trivial. Why should they be less trivial when grouped together in a separate list? – sgeureka ^t•c 17:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment seems so counterfactual as to indicate some gross error. Radio stations such as WOLD, WENN, WKRP and WUSA all appear in the titles of their works and are central to their stories. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are thousands of fictional radio stations, but only a few handful of them are mentioned in the main wikipedia article of their work of fiction. My point stands. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per excellent work on the article by Colonel Warden. The list has been pruned and restricted in a way that satisfies WP:Stand-alone lists by restricting the list only to notable fictional radio stations. Moreover, it does not violate WP:TRIVIA; specifically, the section Not all list sections are trivia sections states that "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list." Since this list is organized by country and alphabetically, it does not meet the first criteria to meet trivia. Since this list is restricted to notable fictional station, it is selective and does not fall under the second criteria for trivia either. Additionally, WP:NOTDIR does not apply here because this list is not "loosely associated" (like say a list of quotes), rather it is strongly associated by the narrow theme of fictional radio. I'd also like to say that this should be a discussion, not a vote (WP:NOTDEM). Most moves for deletion so far seem rather superficial in analysis. —CodeHydro 21:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added a few sources and some more fictional stations that have Wikipedia articles. Note that a lot more sources can be added, but are probably unnecessary for the cases where there is a wikilink to a main article on the station; it's also worth noting that the majority of these stations have their own Wikipedia article now or are of a notable show of the same (thereby demonstrating the station's importance to the plot). —CodeHydro 22:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that the list has been trimmed, and what remains has been sourced. Like most "list of fictional X", occasional pruning is reasonable and appropriate to keep pointless entries down, and that's exactly what has just happened here. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After seeing your above comment above, I decided to make Template:Pruned to save future editors from having to make unnecessary edits. This page is the maiden use of the template. —CodeHydro 16:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that these get any mention outside the book, film, tv show that they are mentioned in, so subject fails WP:GNG. Codf1977 (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colonel Warden makes a good case. A Wikipedia list that aids in navigation, is a valid list. Dream Focus 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly useful and encyclopedic, IMHO. VASterling (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that the topic "fictional radio stations" meets the GNG, or that the fictional radio stations themselves get significant independent coverage outside of the book/film/tv show. WP is not a directory or a collection of indiscriminate information. Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that would be the criterion for having an article about the specific station, not for inclusion on a list. There is no requirement that list elements be notable, because if there were, we'd have an article about them individually. WP:N is very specific that it does not apply to article content. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PRadio stations that are plot elements in notable fiction are appropriate for a list. That is not indiscriminate, because it does not include any fiction, just notable ones. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List is now trimmed down and the majority of entries have articles. Not a trivial as radio stations are an important plot device.--Salix (talk): 05:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: was with the deleters in the first half, then was buoyed by the hopes in the second half but let down on reviewing the article. Usually I favor keeping tight lists of easily identified notable items, but here the notability bar is still set low and many of the stations are fictional random letters; same for the TV article. To get a vote from me (not likely) I would need to see something that looked more like a high-quality disambig page. JJB 07:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

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.