Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overlook Hotel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 redirect to The Shining (novel) . Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlook Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced in-universe article about the hotel featured in The Shining. Individual subject is not notable, and all pertinent information related to the hotel in the works of fiction is covered in The Shining (novel), The Shining (film) and related articles. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I basically agree with Sottolacqua's rationale here, but I would prefer a redirect to The Shining (novel) since the term is evidently a logical search term (the article gets many thousands of page views each month), there are more than a dozen links to this article from other articles, and a quick review suggests that there might be shard or two of useful material in there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google books and scholar links above, and you'll find plenty of sourcing. It's remotely possible that the sum total isn't enough, but not likely and proving that is the responsibility of the nominator in any case. What's clear is that redirection or merging is also not a preferred outcome, because the hotel appears in both a book and movie, so there's no clear unified merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—A fictional location appearing in both a movie and a novel are not valid reasons to keep. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you deliberately ignoring the major part of that rationale, which is that plenty of sources analysing this plot element exist? They certainly appear to. I did those searches and found ISBN 9780299209742 pp. 96, ISBN 9781557420701 pp. 54, ISBN 9780930261146 pp. 64–65 and several places in ISBN 9780313352287, just for starters. What effort did you put in to looking for sources for an unsourced article? If it was no effort at all, as it certainly seems to be given your complete lack of response here to someone pointing out that sources can be found with a search engine, then that was wrong, and not in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Policy requires that no sources exist from which an article can be written, not that an article doesn't cite any sources. If you didn't even look to see what sources existed, then you didn't put policy into action correctly, and you certainly cannot claim that your deletion rationale has a policy-based foundation. Put the effort in to look for sources and write without mercy. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—A fictional location appearing in both a movie and a novel are not valid reasons to keep. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and then come play with us Odd for this to be here, since I am watching it now on Netflix while editing. That is a spooky coincidence. So, reference better, there appear to be hundreds of references between the news archive and the books online. While there is no single reference work on the topic, the reviews of the book, and movie, and tv series all devote material to the hotel itself. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Your reason is WP:ILIKEIT. Clearly not a valid reason to keep. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Xe didn't actually given a reason at all. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Your reason is WP:ILIKEIT. Clearly not a valid reason to keep. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:50, 18 December 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.