Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flora and fauna of the Discworld


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Flora and fauna of the Discworld

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Collection of trivial in-universe details. The one source about a real world plant is trivial. TTN (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The whole article is a bit hard to look for sources for, as it is a very strange combination of fictional species as well as specific individual characters. It is almost entirely unsourced, except to the novels themselves, and written entirely as in-universe plot information.  The one non-primary source, the scientific journal confirming that a species of real-life plant was named after a cat in the books, could possibly indicate that specific character is notable, but certainly does not extend to the rest of the entries or information in the article.  Most of these entries are not even notable subjects within the series itself - they're things mentioned off-hand as jokes.  The only sources I'm finding that actually talk about most of these entries at all are the actual myriad of official Discworld related books that Terry Pratchett was involved in writing.  And I'm not finding any reliable secondary sources that discuss the overall concept of the flora and fauna of Discworld at all, thus the entire thing fails the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Considering the source material has a lot of humorous assides describing something once, I really do not see this as at all encyclopedic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Just WP:INUNIVERSE fancruft. Not encyclopedic at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is merely another collection of fancruft. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:03, 11 November 2019 (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.