Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill Valley (Back to the Future) (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 keep. Stifle (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Valley (Back to the Future)

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

Article contains original research and in-universe prose. Topic is not notable and the film articles already cover anything that could possibly be considered relevant to the actual setting of the stories. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article seriously violates the guidelines at WP:FICTION and the policies on no original research and it does not assert its notability. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough real world notability in the article, such as filming locations of the Back to the Future trilogy, to make this more than just fancruft (or funcraft as stated in the last time this was nominated). "Hill Valley" had been a popular feature on the Universal Studios tour (later in was "Grandview" from Ghost Whisperer), and as an analogy for a small town, it's only slightly less famous than Bedford Falls. While it also has its share of fancruft, there's enough real world notability in here for a keep. Mandsford 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If Bedford Falls is more famous ("notable") than Hill Valley, how does that warrant an entire article full of prose and fancruft for the former if the latter is simply a disambig page to It's a Wonderful Life? Sottolacqua (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I agree this content should be deleted, WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a compelling reason to either keep or remove an article. --EEMIV (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I strongly agree with EEMIV. The argument that other stuff exists on different articles must be avoided at anytime. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Back to the Future - makes no assertion or substantiation of notability; regurgitates WP:PLOT sufficiently succinctly covered elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, clean up the OR and SYNTH, and then editorially consider a merge of the remaining article. There's some good, real-world sources here, and a delete or a redirect-with-extreme prejudice are unwarranted, despite the excessive fan detail. Is there someplace else where this can be Transwiki'ed as-is? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main problem here seems to be that some of the information in the article is unsourced. Some of the plot details could be trimmed and the essential ones should be cited to the movies (or other appropriate references that discuss subjects like continuity within the trilogy, etc.). Need for cleanup is not a reason to delete the article. Amazinglarry (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of valid information about a notable location. Surprised it isn't just called Courthouse Square though. A lot of the information is about the location, not just what it was used for in the Back to the Future films. Dream Focus 02:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then Merge to Courthouse Square. Abductive (reasoning) 08:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read through it I'm thinking most information would be valid only in its own article here. Some of the information here could be duplicated or moved there, but a lot of it belongs just here. This article improves the Wikipedia, by showing how how a notable location came into existence, the movies made there, and other encyclopedic information. This is the sort of thing some people might come to Wikipedia to learn about, and nothing gained by destroying it. Dream Focus 15:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lot of the information in the article is original research. This article is filled with a list of "unique places" to Hill Valley (all of which is unsourced and likely unverifiable), a list of concept cars that appear in the film (which are not related to the article topic), a list of locations and their alternate names in each year (which is unnecessary and does not add any additional encyclopedic understanding about the film series), production information related to Courthouse Square not specifically applicable to the film series, a status update of the Puente Hills Mall featured in the film, and an unsourced history of how the town evolved that is filled with cruft and storytelling. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2010 (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.