Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legendary creatures

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 Keep All. Nishkid64 14:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of species in fantasy fiction

List of species in fantasy fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Group nomination for the following:
Category:Lists of legendary creatures

If all of these lists are deleted.

List of legendary creatures

Covered by Category:Legendary creatures.

List of legendary creatures by type

The only list I can see maybe saving. Some types are covered by their own categories, but otherwise there seems to be too many sections and ways of breaking them up to where it ends up looking like a mess.

List of creatures that pretend to be human

Covered by Category:Shapeshifting. Also, too short to warrent its own list.

List of demons

Covered by Category:Demons. There are also narrower categories for each religion, so not much of the extra information in the list is lost.

List of dragons

Covered by Category:Dragons. List does have some minor description of each which is good for a list, but it is overwhelming dominated by the fictional dragons, which is frankly a bit out of hand. The five redlinks are the real victums here.

List of giants in mythology and folklore

Covered by Category:Giants. We lose one redlink.

List of Greek mythological creatures

Covered by Category:Greek legendary creatures.

SeizureDog 09:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: Probably not a good idea to do this as a group, since there are varying article states and reasons for deletion. Here are my comments:

Strong Keep - List of legendary creatures by type appropriate list that introduces information and classifies components. Improve the article or clean it up. List of dragons - appropriate list that introduces much information and classifies components. There's actually scores of redlinks - agreed that it could use a bath. This is also a sub-article of Dragon that is a valuable overflow.Delete - Category:Lists of legendary creatures (would be a short list at this point), List of creatures that pretend to be human - not technically the same as Category:Shapeshifting, but I don't think the distinction is necessary. List of demons - fully covered by multiple cats. List of giants in mythology and folklore - fully covered by cat, will stub the one redlink if I can ref. List of Greek mythological creatures - fully covered by cat.

Comment - List of legendary creatures - mostly covered by cat, but there seems to be several sub-topics and quite a few redlinks. Needs cleanup.

And I assume someone is actually adding the category to the articles (it's missing on almost every spot check I did) before the list is deleted? (changed per comments below - this just isn't a good grouping) Kuru ^talk 15:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy extremely pissed off keep based on my arguments set out above. Wikipedia is not paper, categories most certainly do NOT supercede lists, lists are extremely useful for pointing out articles that need creating. Jcuk 17:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for one thing Greek mythology != fantasy fiction-Doc^g 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Break group nom into individual noms, this approach is not workable -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all. Lists can coexist with categories if the list is designed to include more information, which many of these are. Mass nomination of mostly unrelated topics is not a good idea. Resolute 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Decide case by case. Categories do not make lists unnecessary or undesirable. Fg2 01:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but with the option to review any individual articles for other reasons at a later date. I do not understand people who insist that categories completely replace lists. Perhaps they are more useful for you, but speaking for myself, I would rather look at a well-done list than a category every time. That said, it possible these lists do need to be improved, and I would recommend doing so. At the least, the top one would be much better if it described each species. Mister.Manticore 03:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Manticore. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all without prejudice to re-nominating each article individually. Nominator is trying to include too much in one nomination. Eludium-q36 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all: Lists have definite reference value outside of the detailed categories defining the subject of the lists. Zahakiel 04:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all Some of these (like the Giant list) are pretty clear keeps in my view. Others are closer but they the scrutiny of an individual AfD. Eluchil404 09:03, 18 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.