Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional weasels

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional weasels

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

This list fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. There is no encyclopedic topic about Weasels in fiction and the list cites no sources. Furthermore, it serves exactly zero navigational purpose because nothing links to it and it doesn't really link to anything. It is useless clutter and in the interests of maintaining this encyclopedia it should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 03:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional animals (other)#Weasels links to it. (It started out as a redirect there, in fact.) So, too, does Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional penguins (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there hasn't been significant coverage of the subject matter in reliable third-party sources, which hinders the ability to create a discriminate and sourced list. Due to the lack of sources, the article has been compiled through a synthesis of original research where editors just added any creature they identified as a weasel. Per WP:SALAT, it will be nearly impossible to find reliable sources that tie together weasels from Ice Age 3, Donkey Kong 64, Spanish Mythology, and all the other random subject areas represented here. The more general topic of Weasels in fiction may be notable, but that article would need to be well-sourced and written in prose, and this trivia list wouldn't have any place in there. Them From Space 04:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, convincing case made as I see it. Jusdafax 08:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and above. Dewritech (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list and links to many notable series that feature weasels in them. Some of these weasel characters have their own articles, Weasel (Farthing Wood), however that isn't necessary. This aids those interested in finding weasels in notable works of fiction, which although not as popular as penguins, still have just as valid a reason to exist on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 15:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Deleting this useless article will improve WP. SnottyWong ^prattle 15:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list with clear inclusion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate topic for a list. Clearly defined criterion, easy enough to source. Fix, don't delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the WP:GNG, as the topic is not notable and therefore the list isn't notable. Where are the reliable articles discussing the general topic of weasels in fiction? Tavix | Talk
Keep appropriate list but needs to be well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like weasels... I don't know i'n just voting to keep it. Str8cash (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT. Claritas § 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. Pure listcruft, trivial and non-encyclopedic. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT. This is a poorly maintained list with no definite scope concerning a topic which is almost certainly not notable, per the emerging consensus at the AFD for Weasels in fiction. Claritas § 08:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not directory, and not a random list of fictional [noun]s. These lists need sources that reference their list topic, not some purported possibility of notability in the future. Shadowjams (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tavix (talk · contribs) – there is no established notability for the topic, rendering the page an indiscriminate collection of information (so WP:NOT). ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per lack of significant, independent WP:RS establishing the WP:NOTABILITY of "fictional weasels". Should Frank "Weasel" from Yes, Minister be included? Also per WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT as argued well above. Verbal chat 12:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well put! Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability established, just an indiscriminate list created and supported by people who think every scrap and cruft of the human experience deserves an article. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete keep votes ignore that the list is really one user's invention since there are no sources that WP:verifynotability of weasels in fiction in general. List fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:SALAT because it is a synthesis of original research compiled into a single list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though I'd support several of these fictional animal lists, this one's very weak, trivial and has no pool of examples to form a backbone, unlike the rabbit, mice and penguin lists, for instance. WP:SALAT basically. Someone another 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost none of the individual weasels and sloats are themselves notable. Bearian (talk) 22:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing is wrong with it--SALAT is cited inappropriately and would apply to any list whatsoever by the rationales cited above. Individual list elements need not be notable, either, per WP:NNC. While a quick look might suggest that the delete side has the stronger arguments, they are, in fact, simply mis-citing several guidelines very loudly. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is you who is mis-citing the WP:NNC guideline. It states: "The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia". Now, since it is all but settled that Weasels in fiction is not notable enough to have its own separate article it follows that a list of them also is not. Furthermore, the final paragraph in WP:SALAT clearly states that Wikipedians may oppose a list on the grounds that its subject is "trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge" and it looks to me that everyone who has cited SALAT here has done so on those grounds. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list can be entirely composed of non-notable entries. No one is arguing that each weasel have its own article, but I am arguing that even if no weasel had its own article, a list of such weasels (documented verifiably in other articles) would serve an encyclopedic purpose, not run afoul of N, and be appropriately kept. SALAT is indeed being misapplied: "fictional weasels" is neither as arcane, trivial, or useless as "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" or "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", the two examples given on that page.Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a logical fallacy. You are comparing a bad article topic with a terrible one and claiming the bad one is OK because "terrible" is worse than "bad". Reyk _YO! 23:24, 10 July 2010 (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.