Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Percy Jackson & the Olympians terms


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Percy Jackson & the Olympians terms

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is completely unreferenced and consists of listcruft: the listed terms are just words from Greek mythology (e.g. "Ambrosia", "Oracle") and/or phrases from Percy Jackson & the Olympians. Any notable Greek phrases already have their own articles; any Percy Jackson subject-specific terms should be defined in context (e.g. explained within a plot summary). There is no need for this list - which has been tagged for over 2 years with "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists" - to exist. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 15:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not pass judgment; I only want to describe what I have seen. In short, this list is useful to a reasonable number of people and fairly extensive, but it is difficult to determine if it meets 100% of Wikipedia's notability and "encyclopedic" requirements for list-type articles.2ReinreB2 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The list currently does not cite any sources, though it could easily cite the book series it refers to. It might be hard to find non-primary and/or objective sources.
 * 2) It is a useful resource within the scope of its subject; i.e. several other articles in its category refer to this list, and use it as a way to keep individual plot summaries and other such descriptions short (by collecting oft-used information elsewhere).
 * 3) Outside of its subject, it provides a quick way for internet users to find a definition of a term which has a meaning by itself, but is often used differently in the Percy Jackson & the Olympians universe. To people who have no interest whatsoever in Percy Jackson & the Olympians and have never encountered one of these terms somewhere like on a fan-site, it is not useful.
 * Utility is not a valid factor when determining whether a topic is suitable for inclusion within Wikipedia. If it's useful, maybe it could find a place on Riordan Wiki (with relevant attribution). Yes, primary sources could be used in the article but that doesn't establish notability. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Percy Jackson series is not Rick Riordan's entire body of work; he's also written other mythological YA series and books aimed at adults. This list would be for fans of the Percy Jackson books only, of whom there are many, which I think would justify keeping this page. If sourcing is an issue, wouldn't adding references take care of that? Methychroma (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability isn't inherited; just because Riordan's works are notable does not mean this page is. Adding references (reliable independent secondary references) certainly would help; can you find any? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 18:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What exactly do you mean by "independent secondary references"? Methychroma (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean sources that are not related to Rick Riordan or his publishers. For instance, a book review that provides substantial description of how terminology is used in the series, and explains why it is such a crucial part of Percy Jackson, would be an independent secondary source. A dictionary with terms from the series on Riordan's website would not be. But I highly doubt anything like this exists in the first place; hence my nomination for deletion. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 09:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia rarely has lists of terms or items used in a series. Characters are fine, but not terms and items. The only exceptions would be in situations where these terms or items have received coverage in independent and reliable sources. Primary sources and passing mentions in book reviews are not good enough. This is essentially WP:LISTCRUFT when you get down to it and things that as stated, would only be of interest for fans. Because of this, this is something that would be best suited for a fan wiki. If anyone wants to transwiki this to an appropriate wiki (like the Riordan wikia), feel free. However as far as Wikipedia goes, this isn't really something that would qualify list-wise. I'd go as far as to say that very, very few series (book, film, etc) would actually merit this type of page. I can't find anything that would really show that these terms/items are notable. There are plenty of primary sources and fan pages, but nothing that would really be considered reliable. Also, in case anyone tries to go gain people from other sites, be aware that AfD is not decided on a vote and unless any of the Percy Jackson fans made arguments based in policy, their input wouldn't really help keep the page in the slightest. Because this has been mentioned, I'm going to tag this AfD with "not a vote". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  20:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - this list is written in a WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. While it is definitely useful to readers of the book series, it is unsuitable for Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel 06:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete unfortunately as this is something better suited for a Wikia or other fan-related website. SwisterTwister   talk  05:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article on ununoctium would only be useful for those with an interest in chemistry, too. It's a convenient reference to Riordan's work, and maybe it can be put on a fan wiki as well. Methychroma (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But the point is that utility is irrelevant. Ununoctium has an article because it's incredibly famous, incredibly important to a major scientific field and well documented by reliable sources (look at the 59 references). Terminology in Percy Jackson is none of those things. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:47, 27 July 2015 (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.