Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rooms (second nomination): Difference between revisions

List of fictional rooms

List of fictional rooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This was recently AfD'd and withdrawn before I could add my input, so I prodded it and it was removed citing the reason being that it is "no different from any other fictional item list". This is an unmaintainable, unsourced, unencyclopedic, potentially endless list. What makes this subject notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Who set the criteria to only include fictional rooms in real buildings? I don't see the usefulness of this list. VegaDark 22:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and Change Title to something like fictional rooms in real buildings. The problem is the scope of the article is too big as it currently is. I feel like it could be useful and interesting, in case someone wants to know if a room they saw in a movie actually exists in reality. Sourcing is the problem, but that might be fixable. --Tractorkingsfan 23:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ridiculous concept. Danny Lilithborne 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The nominator's protests are moot. Index of fictional places members set the precedent. The intro graf explains the scope; the article title is sufficiently accurate. - Keith D. Tyler

¶ (AMA) 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure you can so easily cite precedent in cases like this. Does the existence of an article on Tom Hanks create a precedent for an article about me? I think the comparison is fair. Also, just because we have X doesn't mean we automatically need Y.--Dmz5 09:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom (and original nom). By the way, it is usual for a nomination to be wihdrawn by the nominator fourteen minutes after it was posted with no mention by the nominator that it has been withdrawn? Emeraude 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Way too big of a scope. Define an "important" fictional room for me. This is going to end up littered with informative entries like "the kid's room from They." ♠PMC♠ 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The scope is too big, the categorization is too open-ended, and a name change won't solve these problems. -- Kicking222 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per those saying keep and because the arguments for deletion are not compelling. Otto4711 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For those who can't be bothered to read the articles they are voting on, the intro paragraph indicates the following scope: This is a list of fictional rooms or accessible spaces in structures or establishments that are or were otherwise real, but the rooms/spaces described do not and never did exist. (boldface mine) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you're (at least partially) talking to me, why the attitude? The reason I put "change title" in my vote is because, though I read the article and am capable of understanding the scope laid out there, I think the article could still do with a title change, I often think its a good idea for an article's purpose to be clearly understandable from the title. That way you know what's going on right away. The way it is, the title makes you think you are going to be reading about any fictional room in any fictional locale ever imagined, and then the first paragraph narrows it down. Why not have the scope defined from the get-go? Sorry to activate your condescencion reflex. --Tractorkingsfan 17:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In a way this distinction makes the article even worse; any conceivable angle of minutiae could be fair game in such a list, and you could create "list of famous people who did not own dogs but who starred in movies in which their characters owned dogs" and "list of fictional people with first names that are the same as names of delegates to the United Nations."--Dmz5 09:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Alright, I hear that. Your ninja-like reasoning has convinced me. Let's delete it. I was just kind of focused on the wrong thing here. Delete --Tractorkingsfan 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• In that case you may want to cross our your original "Keep and change title" comment at the top to avoid confusing the closing admin. VegaDark 20:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Apart from the intro para criterion, these entries have no commonality; the list is clearly capable of infinite expansion; its compilation serves (IMHO) no useful prupose within W~paedia. -- Simon Cursitor 07:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep list appears to be well-defined and finite, collects information about fairly common device in fiction that would be hard to search for otherwise. Unsourced now but trivially sourcable; bonus points if someone can get a source for the story about Reagan wanting to see the war room... BCoates 10:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this list is finite?--Dmz5 09:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The number of "rooms or accessable spaces" mentioned by a WP:RS is large and very slowly growing but finite. The fraction that are fictional rooms in non-fictional buildings is a tiny fraction of that, both finite and reasonably small. If filled out and sourced, this could be the starting point for a nice little article on the literary device. BCoates 11:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I have added "well-known" to the intro paragraph (all of the existing examples were well-known). This counters the notability argument, and the previous poster has a fine justification of its usefulness and encyclopaedic nature. Matchups 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This raises a POV issue, because who is to say what "well known" means? Yes, a climactic scene of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure takes place at the Alamo, but is the "fictional room" in which the scene happens notable?--Dmz5 09:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering the main character spends the majority of the movie looking for it, I'd say, uh, yes. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

30k ghits, pretty good for a four-word phrase describing a place that doesn't exist.[1]. Lots of usage not directly related to the movie as a general piece of pop culture. BCoates 11:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This list adds nothing to the encyclopedia. --Rory096 22:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  WP:WINP. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete can be turned into a category instead. Just H 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

  This wouldn't work as a category, because most of the rooms aren't substantive enough to be worthy of full articles. Matchups 02:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I have no issue with deletion of articles not substantive enough, but the rest should beput into a category that can replace this article. Just H 16:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Frankly, the reason it is suited as a list article is for the very reason that they are not liable to rate articles. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. This is the epitome of listcruft. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete vote delete not because the subject is inherently uncyclopedic (offhand I can't think of any, but I'm sure important fictional rooms exist) but because the current list is irretrievably sucky. --Gwern (contribs) 03:05 3 December 2006 (GMT) 03:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  The poorest of reasons, on a wiki, to advocate deletion. If expansion is needed, then expansion is invited. That's how wikis work. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)