Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denton (A Touch of Frost)

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 delete. Cirt (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denton (A Touch of Frost)[edit]

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

This is a PROD refusal. The article is a two-sentence stub which has been tagged as an orphan since last February. Nothing is known about the fictional town, and except as the name of the fictional setting it does not feature in R. D. Wingfield's Frost stories or the television series based on them. TS 18:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no apparent reason to keep this as a search term, and there's no good reason this content shouldn't already be covered in the show's article. No prejudice against keeping or re-creating it if there are sufficient RS that document anything particularly special about the fictional town. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. The article was only an orphan because the nominator removed all incoming links to it. Quite a shady tactic in my opinion, stinks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Further proof lies in the fact that the nominator didn't even tag the article in relation to this discussion, blatantly trying to get it through on the sly. Yes I should assume good faith, but in this situation with this user, there isn't a fat lot of good faith left. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, perhaps the nominator should read up on the deletion policies before nominating any further articles? Jeni ^(talk) 01:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as I remarked it has been tagged as an orphan for nearly a year. I didn't do the tagging. An orphan is defined in Wikipedia:Orphan as an article with less than three links in (this one had two). Please don't make accusations like that, it sours the atmosphere. --TS 15:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Orphan, the only problem with being an orphan page is that it's difficult to find and thus less likely to be improved. The removal of links is therefore likey o exacerbate a problem and create facts on the ground. WP:Orphan also advises that we concentrate on those articles with no links Folks at 137 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable. The TV series is a popular one featuring an important actor (David Jason). Reading the talk page for the series, there seems to be interest in deducing the fictional location and the actual production location, so there is content if anyone wishes to collate and edit. There are probably plenty of interested fans and it's not their fault if we have not been industrious enough. An issue is whether any fictional location deserves an article. This one should be kept, if any is. So far, TS hasn't explained his reasons for deleting the pre-existing links. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out that I hadn't explained why deleted the two links to the article. I did so because they pointed to a useless stub that adds nothing to the reader's knowledge, and because nothing verifiable is known about Denton except that it is the made-up name of a fictional English town in a series of detective stories. --TS 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you did it to add weight to your deletion argument? That isn't acting in good faith at all! Jeni ^(talk) 02:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please don't engage in personal attacks. Please don't leap to conclusions. --TS 10:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability or necessity present, at all. It's just a placeholder name; "A Touch of Frost is set in the fictional town of Denton, which appears to be in or near Oxfordshire, more precisely in the upper Thames Valley. There in fact are at least ten places in the UK named Denton, including one in Oxfordshire, though the town in the series is not directly identified with any of them." From one of the UK DVD distributors. It had to be called something, it's called Denton, how does that necessitate an article? Someone another 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think the DVD distributor may well have "borrowed" that wording from this section of A Touch of Frost or an earlier version. There has been a bit of fannish wittering about the location, but it is not based in reliable sources. --TS 00:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may help if we try to establish clear criteria for the retention/inclusion of fictional places. Any such place is "made-up" for the sake of a story and has no notability beyond that. Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, according to Wiki, and most stubs are probaby "useless". Reasons for deletion need to be better than that. If the reason is lack of notability, then probably most fictional location articles should be merged. So, maybe this argument is a generic one that belongs elsewhere where the main principle can be discussed and decided by a wider audience. Folks at 137 (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Also, removing wikilinks in the interest of cleaning up WP:OVERLINKING isn't bad faith. Wikilinking a bunch of words doesn't make an article better, it just makes a sea of blue links that do nothing to enhance understanding of the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:25, 26 January 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.