Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblins in modern 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 delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 07:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Goblins in modern fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially just "Goblins in popular culture" by an alternate name. A crufty example-farm that was spun out unnecessarily from Goblin in 2007 rather than deleting unreferenced content and is almost entirely WP:OR. The single significant reference, from The Ashgate Encyclopedia, can easily be incorporated into Goblin instead, in the relevant section. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a whole lot of WP:OR combined with a whole lot of WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia that fails WP:LISTN. What very little sourced information here is easily covered in the main Goblin article, making this an unnecessary WP:SPLIT.  In fact, taking a quick look, it already is covered there, meaning that any kind of redirecting or merging is not needed.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article lacks the secondary sources to support its claims about the evolution of Goblins and their level of evilness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary content fork. Hog Farm (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:ORcish trivia. Also, this is the first time I've heard role-playing and video games called "modern fiction". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It can be renamed to "in popular culture". Unprecise name is not the reason for deletion. While some lists are technically unsourced, sources can be find in the linked main articles. EchoBlu (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - removing this article will make original Goblin page to grow over time. And that is inevitable. In addition, this "in popular culture" list is the same as any other with the fictional creatures. Does it mean that majority of the lists from Template:Fictional biology need to be removed at some point in the future? Existence of this list is a consequence of the big impact goblins have on popular culture (it can't be described in one sentence, which will inevitably lead to unproportional expansion of the "fiction" section in the main and only Goblin article). Removing only this list and keeping all others (and some of them are in much worse state than this one) will be very wrong. And again, you will need to hard manage main Goblin article, which is not possible - every article with high/mid popular topic become mess if it doesn't have some kind of list to support him. Think again please. EchoBlu (talk) 10:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "That is inevitable". No it's not. Unsourced cruft can be removed immediately, per WP:BURDEN.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing this list won't cause the main Goblin article to grow, because nearly everything here is unsourced, indiscriminate trivia. That does not actually need to be placed anywhere, and can be simply removed if it is added to the main Goblin article.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it mean that the most of the lists from Template:Fictional biology need to be deleted, because some of them are even in worse state then list of goblins in modern fiction? EchoBlu (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking over such shining examples as List of fictional rodents in comics, the answer is a resounding yes. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * My personal favorite when I looked into it was List of fictional canines in film. A "list" that by being about such a specific category, has exactly one, unsourced entry.  So, yeah, as Clarityfiend said, the answer is most certainly "Yes".  Rorshacma (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are digging a rabbit hole. List of unicorns - completely unsourced and unorganized; List of ghosts - unsourced and WP:INDISCRIMINATE; List of fictional pinnipeds - completely unsourced and unorganized; List of fictional snakes and List of fictional worms - unsourced and WP:OR; Mermaids in popular culture - completely unsourced and WP:OR, etc.
 * I mean, yes, there are many articles and lists that need to be looked at and either be massively improved or, in many cases, deleted. But as this particular AFD is examining one, specific list, arguing to keep because there is a lot more work to do is more or less an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what WP:OTHERSTUFF means, but you can't apply it when you have systematic problem - or we don't need to call it a problem - it is the way how wikipedia learned, from experience, to organize that content. As I already said, it is some kind of entropy phenomenon, 'in popular culture' content have tendention to grow over time, you can't pretend that this phenomenon doesn't exist. And it is impossible to hard manage all those articles all the time. You can prohibit and automatic remove any new content in "popular culture" section of Goblin article, but that is the worst thing we can do. Wikipedia needs moderation, but it also needs to breathe. It is impossible to hard moderate every new "in popular culture" content. We need to make difference between systematic organization and "hey, why we delete this article when random_one still exists" . EchoBlu (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It is easy to delete, but maybe they should stay as place holders which can be improved. I checked, for many entries sources can be find very easy. As I already said, it is some kind of entropy, 'in pop culture' content grow over time - it's always better to organize it then pretend it doesn't exist. Goblins will need constant hard moderation if we remove this list, (which is not possible from my experience - because goblins in fiction is not the only one of that kind on wikipedia), Template:Fictional biology exists for the reason. EchoBlu (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - If it's possible to discuss their impact in a meaningful way, it's currently not shown. TTN (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice piece of WP:OR that as written does not belong here. WP:TNT at best.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:57, 19 February 2020 (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.