Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Verde (fictional country)

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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Although the apparent lack of secondary sources would typically be a deciding factor, User:Emperor raises the argument that there are sources yet unexplored. Combined with the comments noting appearances in multiple films related with a single studio, I consider this to be an argument sufficient enough to challenge the arguments in favor of deletion. Toss in the fairly even split between commenters, and it's clear that there's no firm consensus at this time. --jonny-mt 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Val Verde (fictional country)

Val Verde (fictional country) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of trivial plot points from several films. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of references indicating "significant coverage" in third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The fictional country is referenced in a number of films, being used as a stand-in. Some films, such as Die Hard 2, give some geo-political history about the country as well. This article is more relevant than many in wikipedia. The simple fact that it is referenced in more than one film makes it more notable than some other exiting entries. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a compelling reason for keep (or delete) an article. In-universe geo-political "history" is not enough to sustain an article in the absence of out-of-universe third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave my opinion. I don't need to debate it with you. It has become VERY evident to me that wiki-administrators do whatever they want, so trying to justify it with you is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. But, whatever. Happy editing! --EEMIV (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say you were one? I said the administrators do anything they please. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

They do stop people from removing the AFD tag from an article, that's for sure. Garion96 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. I stand by what I said. If it doesn't apply to you, wonderful. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, unrelated trivia. There is nothing to indicate any continuity between the appearances other than some of the same creative personnel. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep For whatever reason, "Val Verde" is used in films from 20th Century Fox as its generic (or stereotypical) Latin American dictatorship; Fox also has a history of using the name for towns in Westerns, such as Bolero in 1968. Being a Hollywood stereotype, it's a legitimate subject for an article. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep due to multiple appearances in diverse films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This seems notable enough. Bienfuxia (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The notability has only been flagged for a few days and we should try and exhaust all efforts to improve an entry (that isn't obviously completely non-notable) before resorting to AfD. There are certainly lines of areas that haven't yet been followed (for example, DVD commentary tracks are often a good place to look for creators' insight on such things, also given the fact that it does appear in a number of films it must have been mentioned somewhere). This AfD may even prove useful as it will draw attention to the need for more sources - so if anyone has any of the films or might know of any other good sources then now is the time to pitch in (I'll have a look through Predator later). Also on a sidenote there was a spoofed CIA entry for Val Verde which was removed from the links and it could be worth adding this back in: cached version. (Emperor (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC))
• Comment - How is this article "notable enough"? Is it the total lack of reliable sources, or the lack of any real world coverage or commentary? Besides we need not add 50 references because of the AFD, a few would be nice, but I doubt even that will be found. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks secondary sources to satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of representation by reliable third party publications or sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Its repeated use in mainstream films from notable producers and distributors establishes its notability as a fiction item. It's better to improve and cite more sources than to delete. " Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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.