Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species in fantasy fiction

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 TSO1D 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of species in fantasy fiction

Already covered by Category:Fantasy creatures. Furthermore, the list is poorly mantained (how are Cosmo and Wanda species?) and it is impossible to list every fictional species. SeizureDog 08:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not really maintainable even, although I have tried. Also, there's too much overlap with folkloric/mythical creatures, as most authors using such creatures will try to put their own spin on them. The idea of listing the origins of the most important fantasy creatures is a good one, except it will be hard to source their "most important" status. Ben Standeven 09:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. You know. It seems here lately that a large number of articles have come under the gun of Deleation. From list of Television Stations, articles on people and cities, to Monster list. I wonder why thats happening? This list, While it may need a bit of clean up, is fine as it is. Magnum Serpentine 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Making an observation about recent AfD trends is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered by the category. JIP | Talk 15:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No list is ever "already covered by the category", they serve completly different functions, and should coexist. Seriously, it's getting to the point where I feel like nominating categories based on the fact the list they sit side by side with have been deleted! Jcuk 17:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Stating what you do about categories whose "companion list" is deleted is not a valid "keep" reason. A list article that simply repeats what appears in a category is redundant. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I really do not see why this should be deleted. 96T 23:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply misunderstanding the nominator is not a valid "keep" reason. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates the category, except in that it also contains WP:OR and misinformation. GassyGuy 05:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, unmanageable and too broad in the worst way. WP:NOT#IINFO. Not a notable topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Axem Titanium 05:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A list allows editors to mention topics that do not have a full article of their own, and provide a link to a topic that does. Eludium-q36 11:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe we need a list of lists of species in fantasy fiction? With links to articles dedicated to individual worlds?Ben Standeven 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it serves a comparative function for those studying such matters. Zahir13 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Super Keep Wikipedia has the potential to expand the normal range of regular encyclopedias. for roaming-learners such as myself, this is a very useful tool. Ben Shalom 1:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep though I would ask that this list be annotated. BTW, problem with Cosmo being an entry was easy to fix. Removed, not a problem. If all you can do is provide one minor error, I'm not concerned. FrozenPurpleCube 04:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The bigger problem is that it only includes species from a handful of series. There are no standards for which series are included, and it's impossible to list species from every fantasy fiction series ever. --SeizureDog 08:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider that a big problem, if the list were too long because of that, separate lists for each series would be the thing to do. FrozenPurpleCube 15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would rather make such a split sooner rather than later; anyway, I think most of the series have their own separate lists already. In fact, several links lead to the separate lists. Ben Standeven 22:59, 17 January 2007 (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.