Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unseen University

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. leaning towards keep Cirt (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen University

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

The entire article is plot and original research. This article is a mess, and I don't see any way to fix it. 34k bytes and no references.Blargh29 (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I poked around the article, it was a well-written piece on a fictional piece of real-estate that his been an important part of about a dozen books (at least). And a semi-important part in even more books. Heck, it's even the setting for a half-non-fictional book (The Science of Discworld) Lots42 (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is flawed but deletion is not the answer. It could possibly be reformatted as a list of Characters. The jokey writing style of Discworld makes it hard to describe anything except in its own fictional rather silly terms. Direct quotes need to be used a bit more for some of the unavoidably silly descriptions, more specific citations to each book and page references would help raise the quality too. Deletion is entirely inappropriate, the article needs work not removal. -- Horkana (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There must be reliable third party sources covering the this topic in order for it to pass WP:N. Just citing to the book itself isn't enough.--Blargh29 (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to call WP:SOFIXIT on this. There are literally scores of Discworld-related articles on Wikipedia, almost none of which have 3rd party citations. Most of them were created early in Wikipedia's evolution before notability guidelines had solidified. However, I am the only person who edits them on an even remotely regular basis. Most of my work has consisted of merging smaller articles together to get their number down to a more manageable size. Finding secondary sources for every Discworld article would be a Herculean task, and it's not one I have any interest in taking on alone. I have more important issues to deal with. So. Either delete Wikipedia's entire Discworld domain or find those sources yourself. Discworld is the second best-selling fantasy series in the world after Harry Potter. There are bound to be plenty. Serendi ^pod ous 09:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I object to unencyclopedic, original research essay language, such as "The University's gargoyles have taken on a life of their own (not that this is anything unusual for Discworld gargoyles in general)." But the article as a whole -- compared to others of its type in Wiki -- is fairly reasonable and informative. Unless the intent is to remove, for example the "Characters" sections entirely from Wikipedia articles, a certain amount of synthesis is unavoidable. The "Characters" section, however, should be trimmed to about 1/10th its length, removing commentary that is either quoted from the books, or is cute inventive language intended to sound as if it is. Examples: "the Bursar, a man whose idea of excitement was a soft-boiled egg" and "At UU, he fulfills the role of the one person in the organisation who knows what's going on and why it's happening and who's doing it, although he often wishes he didn't." Piano non troppo (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, Blargh29, compare with List_of_species_(Animorphs). And also compare the sterile List_of_characters_from_Coronation_Street with the linked Peter_Barlow_(Coronation_Street). A distinguishing feature of the Barlow article is that it provides references, but the references aren't especially encyclopedic. In one place, the actor playing the fictional character is quoted (shouldn't that be the writer or the director?) and in another reference it's a "Coronation Street spokesperson".[1] I don't know how many TV shows are well-heeled enough to have a spokesperson, and in lieu of them, who is reliable? A similar problem pertains to books. Who besides the author is a reliable reference? And if the author won't talk -- or is dead -- would that mean there are no reliable references? In terms of outright deletion for lack of being "savable", I'd vote for the Animorphs article, first. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree entirely with Serendipodous. For all that the article lacks references it is neither noticeably inaccurate nor, by the standards of these things, unencyclopedic. If it were to be deleted then pound-to-a-penny a Pratchett fan would come along within days and start an UU article that wouldn't be 10% as good as this. Declan Clam (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major plot element in very noitable series of fictions. If the fictions were less important, I;d look for a merge. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 31 October 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.