Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional media

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. Cbrown1023 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional media

List of fictional media (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Delete another indiscriminate list of items which range from having some measure of importance in their source materials to near-random minutae. Otto4711 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. JuJube 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as arbitrary as an arbitrary thing. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Useful list Jcuk 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete far too vague -Doc^g 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but I think it should be divided up into seperate articles. I don't see why it should be deleted when there are other list of fictional things like it. I can make a start to it by moving the operas out of the theatre section and into the already existant List of fictional musical works where there is already a section for them. The publications section could easily hold it's own article and the tv/radio shows already have their own articles so they aren't needed here. That leaves the slogans and the plays from the theatre section. Slogans just needs a bit of work and additions from Ninteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World and it could be it's own article also. Not sure about plays, could be merged with another article though. If this does happen I'll add all the sections/articles to my list of things to watch out for in works of fiction. ;) Tartan 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that several other of these fictional lists are also up for deletion, and more nominations may follow. So "there are other lists of fictional things" is a pretty slender reed to hang a "keep" on. Otto4711 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I have seen stranger articles than this on Wikipedia, although maybe it should be split up. PatGallacher 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In general, there shouldn't be a "list of X" unless X itself is an encyclopedic topic, in which case it is more important to have an article on X. Logically, if X were encyclopedic and important you'd expect to see an article on X, which might contain a list of X, which would be broken out when it got disproportionately huge. There is no article on Fictional media. It's not an encyclopedic topic. You couldn't write one, because there are no books or other sources on which you could base it. Since it's not encyclopedic, neither is a List of fictional media. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I don't disagree with people who are suggesting clean-up to this list, but if you don't agree with the criteria, suggest changing it. I also don't see why an article of "fictional X" has to exist. Is this from some policy, or just a personal opinion? And have you considered that articles on X existing may be a good substitution? Mister.Manticore 03:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 04:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete, WP:NOT#IINFO, just because fictional things exist doesn't mean Wikipedia must list them. The subject of the article is not notable AT ALL. It is also completely unmanageable and criterion for inclusion are terribly defined. Hey, I just made up a fictional company and wrote it down. Can I add it to Wikipedia? Axem Titanium 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment if your writing becomes notable enough for an article, yes. This appears to be the discrimination that you so desperately seek in these articles: that the sources containing the fictional entities are notable in themselves. The statement that if you wrote something down it becomes fictional and can be added to the list is just a fallacious straw man argument. And as I've said in the other AfD's you've commented on: how does WP:NOT#IINFO apply? --Canley 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep useful, verifiable, annotated and well organised list. --Canley 13:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopedic in its own right, contains useful and valid information, not indescriminate and squarely within WP:LIST. (Could be tagged for WP:V, though.) AndyJones 13:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• keep but divide by types of media. This sort of a list is useful not just for research but for browsing. DGG 18:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason for keeping. "Useful" is also not a reason unless accompanied by a reason why its useful. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:22, 20 January 2007 (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.