Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional bars

List of fictional bars

Delete - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants. Vast numbers of works of fiction contain a fictional bar or at least a mention of one. A listing of every one of them is a directory of loosely associated items. Those very few fictional bars that have notability apart from the originating fiction should have their own articles and be categorized in Category:Fictional bars and inns. The presence of a bar in a work of fiction tells us nothing about the work of fiction and nothing about the work's relationship to other fictional works. "It has a bar in it" is not a theme or in the vast majority of cases a central or even an important plot element or point of commonality. Otto4711 17:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:LC, points 2, 3, 4, 6. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Overcategorization (which is incorporated by reference in WP:L). Trivial and inherently unmaintainable, and therefore could never be a useful or meaningful. Note to Stifle: WP:LC is an essay, but all the concerns you raise are included in WP:L and/or WP:NOT. - Che Neuvara 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we really need a list of fake bars? No. ILovePlankton⁽^L^—ⁿ⁾ 18:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real use to anyone Chandlerjoeyross 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potentially infinite list. JJL 18:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the "fictional restaurants", the article is a guide to tracking down the origin (and in some cases, the owner of the rights) to the name of a business. New restaurants and bars are launched every year, and this serves a greater purpose than simply "places where you can't really buy a drink". Many of us cultural illiterates wouldn't automatically link "The Blue Parrot" to Casablanca (though even we would know Rick's Place). Looks like this is on the way to deletion, but worth saving to one's hard drive. Mandsford 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jbeach56 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford. Lists help provide organizational structure to the encyclopedia and are sometimes easier to follow than categories, although I'm not opposed to having both. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and useful. Battle Ape 03:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL. 193.95.165.190 08:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

two paragraphs in an essay. Not even a flexible guideline, just some peoples' opinion that does not necessarily have consensus--Almost every point of that essay is subject to disagreement, see its talk page. Interesting & useful aren't alone enough, but they certainly don't hurt. 15:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete- this is a balatant attempt to circumvent the deletion of the fictional restaurants article, and move for a snow delete. It is a bad faith article, which will soon no doubt resemble much of the deleted article anyway, exact same logic for delete anywayJJJ999 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just another list full of insignificant information. --Slartibartfast (19 92) 21:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It might be WP:INTERESTING but it sure isn't encyclopedic. Burntsauce 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_stuff - this is how bad these lists have gotten... and some of the same old faces still vote keep!JJJ999 05:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment You may want to interpret their keep votes in light of the existence of humor. --Buridan 13:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep'I do not see this as loosely associated, where they loosely associated, i would think that we could substitute a similar term, like monkeys and find that related to that term is sufficiently similar in strength. no, in this case that they are all a bar matters. beyond that the bars on the list as a whole are more notable than the bars individually, so the article provides material to wp that in deleting it degrades wp. --Buridan 13:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]