Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Oxford in popular culture

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. ✗plicit 14:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oxford in popular culture

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An even worse quality version of what we are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Cambridge in popular culture (with just three footnotes), and another article that totally misses the point of WP:IPC, WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TRIVIA. Which means what we have is yet another TVTrope-ish trivia laundry list of gems like "Clone High - includes the character of Doug Prepcourse, a trucker who says he was a Rhodes Scholar". Note that the single sentence referenced to Oxford in Fiction: an annotated bibliography does not need merging, as a), it already is mentioned in the low-quality mess at University_of_Oxford#Oxford_in_literature_and_other_media (sigh) and 2) it's unclear whether it is even related to University of Oxford, or just Oxford, the town (double sigh), so no, there's nothing to even merge this time. My BEFORE also did not suggest this is a notable topic, although I am a bit surprised about this (I thought there would be something); in either way, even if sources are found, WP:TNT applies as this would need a 100% rewrite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Education, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The oldest university in England has featured often in popular culture. The article needs to be cleaned up a bit, but it should be retained. --Bduke (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm in two minds about this one. I agree that it's not very good, but I don't agree that it's worse than the Cambridge one. Many people will find it interesting and worthwhile. In the event that final decision is Keep The Oxford Murders needs to be in the literature section, and not just in the film section (I've read the book (not very good), but I haven't seen the film). Athel cb (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another poorly referenced list of largely non-notable trivia that fails WP:LISTN. The one sentence of information on the overall topic here that could be said to even be remotely reliable sourced ("By 1989, 533 novels based in Oxford had been identified and the number continues to rise.") is already included at the main University of Oxford#Oxford in literature and other media, thus leaving no reason for retention of this spinout. As a reminder, WP:ITSUSEFUL is generally not considered a valid argument for retention at AFD discussions, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like the Cambridge one, this article is little more than a collection of trivia and original research. Furthermore, the article makes no attempt to provide criteria for inclusion. Instead, it simply gives a list of random works that might contain a reference to the University of Oxford. The importance of these references is not adequately described in the list. Honestly, this list is noticeably worse than the other lists in terms of sourcing. There are only three citations in the entire article. Each of these references corresponds to single sentences. Nothing else is cited. While there may be a workable topic here, this list needs to be destroyed so that something better can replace it. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly trivial and unsourced. Cakelot1 (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mostly unsourced, which means this article fails core policies including WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. There are articles that discuss how a concept is portrayed in fiction, but that would require a new article with nothing to WP:PRESERVE from this one. Wikipedia isn't a database of primary sources, and articles are supposed to be formed around how secondary sources have treated the subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 23 April 2022 (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.