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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)[edit]

Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - this fictional school has no notability beyond the associated TV series. Prod removed by editor stating that the unreferenced and trivial details should be merged to Strangers with Candy, although that editor really should know by now that lists of unsourced trivia are not particularly welcome on Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Otto's spot on. This is nothing but unsourced trivia. Reyk _YO! 03:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No real world notability and mainly fancruft. Matt (Talk) 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Matt.T JuJube (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of it being a major setting for a major series. The materials cited seem to talk about the school itself in a specific way. There is no need for the references to be primarily about the subject, as long as they cover it. The nomination seems to be based on an opinion about WP content, not just the suitability for an article. About two years go there was indeed a pattern of deletion of what was then denigrated as trivia, but such deletions since become very unusual. Fortunately, even if the article is deleted, no decision here can prevent the addition of content to an article--that will need to be discussed on the article talk pages. DGG (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• About two years go there was indeed a pattern of deletion of what was then denigrated as trivia, but such deletions since become very unusual. More's the pity. Sadly too many editors would rather have gigantic lists of idiotic nonsense like "in episode 14 of season two of The Made-up Show, a character is wearing a Dukes of Hazard wristwatch and the time on it is 11:36" than have articles that are actually encyclopedic in content, thus the lists of idiotic trivia have become harder and harder to delete as the garbage heaps that they are. As for the need for sources to be "primarily" about a topic to establish the notability of the topic, you are correct that this is not a requirement. However, significant coverage is required. You are also correct that the sources about the show "seem to talk about the school in a specific way". That way is by merely mentioning the school as the setting of the program. Where are the sources that address the subject directly in detail, as required by WP:N? Otto4711 (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The "parent" article and the school section in particular would benefit from the inclusion of some of this content. Unlike many pop-fiction subject, it has some sourcing too. So I don't see a reason it needs to be deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:JNN, WP:ITSCRUFT, and WP:PERNOM all being insufficient "reasons" for deletion. This setting in question is the principal location of a television show and film and is covered in multiple reliable secondary sources found on Google News. Moreover, per the GFDL, we must keep the edit history of merged content public. Thus, as this discussion cannot close as delete per the GFDL, a merge discussion should be discussed on the article's talk page, which I reckon we can all see as a fair compromise. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources to which you link do not establish the notability of the school separate from the series or film, as they are mere mentions of the school's name and mere mentions are not "significant coverage" as required by WP:N which states in relevant part that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Trivial mentions are defined by example as one-sentence mentions in a larger work. Of course reviews of the film are going to mention its setting. That does not make the setting independently notable as mere existence does not make a topic notable. Find some sources that discuss the topic directly in detail. Otto4711 (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is an acceptable spinoff article because it concerns a subject that appears in both the film and television series and thus serves as a gateway to those articles. The sources successfully establish notability because they not only verify this article's content, but also demonstrate that it is worth mentioning in more than just a couple reviews that appear on Google News and when they discuss the school, they discuss how it does not reflect reality, the factions in the school, etc., i.e. they provide out of universe non-trivial coverage of the school, or put simply more than significant coverage for our purposes. A fair compromise here would be a merge and redirect with the edit history in tact as a reasonable middle ground. There is certainly no compelling reason to redlink the article, but I would agree that it probably could be covered sufficiently in the article where the sourced information was merged to earlier. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per DGG and A Nobody -- good points are raised. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs a little bit more work, but delete the "Fact" section as itviolates WP:TRIVIA. --Mark Chung (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Strangers with Candy. This is a fictional setting with no independent notability, and the current article essentially consists of a list of trivia. Terraxos (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Strangers with Candy. The fictional setting's value lies within the context of the programme. Dr.Who (talk) 10:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Keep for now. The nomination was to delete. Provide an opportunity for merge discussion on the article's talk page per A Nobody. Dr.Who (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced trivia and plotcruft, non-notable subject, no real-world content. Unlikely search term. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this verifiable and notable information has already been merged, it cannot be deleted, but only redirected at worst with the edit history intact per the GFDL. Plus, WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are never valid "reasons" for deletion. Plus, it is a valid search term that is notable to hundreds of readers and editors. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I have to say that I don't appreciate being dismissed as waving at WP:JNN and even if I did I would still feel constrained to point out that it and the other things you linked to are part of an essay, not part of any policy or guideline, and thus are not binding on this discussion. Second, while "Flatpoint High School" might possibly be a valid search term, "Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy)" is not. Finally, since the information merged is unsourced, it is subject to removal at any time. The unsourced material has now been removed from Strangers with Candy, as has the impediment to the deletion under the GFDL (noting that WP:Merge and delete is also an essay that may freely be disregarded). Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The material that was merged was the sourced material, which means the GFDL concern remains and thus this article cannot be deleted. There is no policy based reason for deletion. The subject is notable because it appears in both a film and television series as the principal location. The subject is verifiable in multiple reliable secondary sources as demonstrated by a Google news search. Thus, the article meets are notability and verifiability policies/guidelines while being consistent with our First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia covering fictional topics with importance to people in the real world. Thus, coupled with the merge of sourced material means that while some could be a credible case for merging and redirecting, there is no compelling reason to redlink this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Strangers with Candy. The series is notable, the fictional location is not. This will also satisfy the GFDL concerns above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:05, 10 January 2009 (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.