Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional badgers


 * 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. The overall participation is numerically somewhat split between keep and delete, with some arguing for a merge but with extremely limited agreement as to what a sensible target for said merge would be. However, there is significant lack of basis in policy for a lot of the delete arguments: WP:LISTN's requirement for the list concept itself, rather than just the parent topic, is a commonly-referenced and sensible guideline that many fictional list articles run afoul of: but several participants have repeatedly pointed out that there are reliable source articles that specifically discuss the concept of fictional badgers in detail. It is therefore very difficult to give as much weight to arguments supporting the statement that that isn't the case, without making effort to actually refute it. The article has been significantly trimmed during the debate, which also addresses some of the earlier concerns regarding the indiscriminate nature of it and the very valid argument that some of the content was gratuitous. Valid arguments were made regarding flaws in the execution of this article, which to a point have been rectified - but it does not seem that a consensus to delete the article based on policy has been produced here. ~ mazca  talk 00:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional badgers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN. Fictional badgers are not often discussed as a group. Also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as most of the fictional badgers listed here are random mascots or minor figures or background things in popular culture (a "badger saw" that's described as a weapon is a badger?). Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Without weighing in on whether it officially passes muster, I've gotta say I'll be sorry to see this one go just because it's kind of hilarious. Even just the title "list of fictional badgers" cracks me up. LOL Come on, guys, can't we just ignore the rules just this once and keep this one? After all, you know what the The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger would say about the rules, don't ya? :P — Hunter Kahn 05:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep My joke above aside (though I stand by the joke because the subject matter does still kind of crack me up) I'm also formally changing my vote to Keep based upon the arguments of, and . — Hunter Kahn 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and because we don't need no stinkin' badgers. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You want to delete an article just so that you can make a joke? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Because the nominator is right. Badgers, penguins, iguanas, lakes, mountains, etc. - doesn't matter in 99.9% of cases. Lists of fictional xxxs, with maybe a very few exceptions, aren't published in the real world, so they don't belong here either. The joke is just icing on the cake. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, there's Dougherty's top 10 list, but that's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I came across this article recently and was weighing up whether to nominate it as well. Interesting that the Wikipedia list article got a mention in a Guardian article but that alone isn't a reason to retain an article. Ajf773 (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep We have many lists of fictional characters by species or type. This is one that's had rather more attention put into it over time (just read the talk: page). There is no requirement that a list would have to include badgers which had already appeared together, it's listing them because they're badgers, and sometimes you're just trying to find the badgers which have appeared in fiction. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides which, two of the sources already here are specifically lists of 'the best fictional badgers'. So what does 'Fails WP:LISTN' mean? We have sources on this as a list. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep but cleanup The lede is actually fair justification to keep the list, but the list itself must be cleared of all entries that are unsourced or where the specific character lacks a standalone notable article. The list is too much WP:TRIVIA, but entries that can be sourced via a third-party reliable source is fine. --M asem (t) 14:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like to me that only five of them actually have stand-alone articles, and one of those is Rock hyrax, which was likely what "badger" in the King James Bible referred to and I'm not sure if it meets the inclusion requirements. A lot of the bluelinks just redirect to the series or work they were in. Hog Farm (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are ones that aren't blue-linked but are sourced (eg the one from Fantastic Mr. Fox). Those are fine with the source. Its the other 90% that may have a blue-link notable work but no source about the badger in it, or the badget character being notable on its own. --M asem  (t) 15:32, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Although sourcing is always good, it's clear in our policy for list articles that per-entry notability is not required in lists.Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said per-item notability. Per-item verifyability is, however. And because these are pop culture lists, they should be reliable third-parties that ID them. --M asem (t) 02:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * With Erik's cleanup/removals and additions, I'd say this is now a good model list for how "List of fictional X" should be looked at: some type of established background (with sources) of broad use in fiction, and then blue-linked or sourced entries that follow in appropriate sections. --M asem (t) 16:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Light Merge to Badger. Only the lead section of this article, the overview of Badgers in fiction, is actually sourced, and could potentially be worth discussing.  The rest of this list is just complete WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia that fails WP:LISTN.  Without that massive wall of trivia, there really is no need for this to be WP:SPLIT from the main article on the species, which already has a pretty healthy section on the topic.  The lead section of this article does have some useful sources that are not currently being used in the main badger article, so redirecting this there, and integrating those sources, would be a good idea.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's badgers in popular culture. This is badgers in fiction. They're not the same thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Light merge to Badger per User:Rorshacma. There is not enough separate content to merit a separate list when the fancruft is removed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per and  because there has been significant coverage about this. For example, in addition to the two list sources, the book Understanding Conflicts about Wildlife: A Biosocial Approach has a chapter called "Badger-Human Conflict" that discusses fictional badgers, "Fictional badgers have therefore played a central role in this process [of addressing the bovine-tuberculosis controversy] by providing journalists with a series of easily recognizable 'hooks' from which a complex and relatively obscure science/policy issue could be discussed without losing audiences' (and editors') interest in the story." I encourage editors to look past the unsourced listings (and remove them). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed unsourced listings, reducing the article by 66% and also added another list source, a list of fiction from the book RSPB Spotlight: Badgers as seen here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I added yet another list source, Badger by Daniel Heath Justice, which supports at least five listings (page preview is a little tricky). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See Talk: as to why that blanking of the article was such a bad thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep While I am disappointed that my addition of Badger from Breaking Bad got shanked, the list is now a better resource after Erik's good work, pruning it to a manageable size. This is a bit different than badgers in popular culture (the first part of that section in Badger talks about badger myths, which do not belong here.) There is some duplication between the articles though when it comes to fictional badgers, which I'd prefer to avoid since this is inviting them getting out of sync. Badger does a better job of giving the fictional badgers it discusses context; this article is just a list. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean, there is a lot of overlap of "in fiction" and "in popular culture"; I agree mythological badgers are not "pop culture", and there may be real life badger celebs that are not "fiction". But the areas for exclusion, particularly real-life badgers, are very very small relative to the overlap (Can't draw a good Venn diagram but hopefully that's clear). If there are any seriously usable real-life badgers that can be sourced, that's probably better on the page badgers than here, but all other uses in pop culture can probably fall her as "in fiction". --M asem (t) 16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also fair point on BB's Badger, I added a See Also to the disambiguation page for those other "Badgers" that aren't badgers. --M asem (t) 16:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge There are too many non notable badgers mentioned in this list, not to mention badgers that aren't even characters. May as well take the more notable ones to the list of mustelids. Deltasim (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for entries in a list to pass WP:N. That is often why we have lists. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Entries do have to pass WP:V, though, and self-referencing popular culture is not usually considered to be verified. If kept, the list will likely lose some entries due to that.  The TV show or movie the badger is found in would be a primary source, which would usually not be enough for WP:V.  Also, some of the entries don't actually appear to be badgers - the "badger saw" comes to mind. Hog Farm (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You can verify something in the source material without problems. You don't need a reference for everything.  This  revert is ridiculous since the title of one of the books the character is featured in is titled "Digger the Badger Decides to Stay", so you have no reason to doubt that a badger is in those books.  The rule against primary sources is for people talking about themselves who might lie, nothing to do with media being used to verify things like this.   D r e a m Focus  20:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I added back in the one for the Tolkien easily finding a review that mentioned the badger folks in it.  Anyway, throughout history badgers have been used in fiction, this the same as the thousands of other "in popular culture" articles, so same arguments for keeping them all applies.   D r e a m Focus  02:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  02:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: I think it's clear that there's a lot of interest in improving this article -- this AfD discussion sounds more like an active article talk page discussion. I think the result of this AfD is likely to be that we'll end up with a more coherent, better sourced version of the article, which is a net plus. -- Toughpigs (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete an yet another random, indiscriminate list. Some days I wonder if we should just ban all list articles, and force instead including lists on articles on topic pages where the topic itself is clearly notable. Lists lead to indiscriminate inclusions of things not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete to me it looks like snythesizing information to suggest it is a known topic but it's not.Blue Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 19:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTESAL, this topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Furthermore, because the group or set is notable, individual items do not need to be independently notable. So WP:SYNTH does not apply here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * this article relies on foklore representation as fiction. Which i believe should be challenged as standard fiction.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 20:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Folklore details only make up one paragraph of the lead section. There are multiple list sources that support the topic's notability in discussing fictional badgers as a group or a set. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The coverage on Badgers is not worldwide or multi-regional. IMHO that is relevant. The BBC, The Gaurdian, and Wiley Online Dictionary are covering something that's only relevant to their region. To list every fictitious Badger in Wikipedia because one region is a hot topic related doesn't seem right.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So are you arguing that an article on WP should abandon our usual international viewpoint? Or that sources used to support an article must either support the whole article, or not be used at all?  Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I just think the notability is relying on a remote situation to reflect an entire list of fictional Badgers regardless of location. the sources can still be used, but i don't think it's enough to justify a "List of fictional Badgers". I think it could easily fit into the actual Badger article.<b style="color: #4682B4">Blue</b> <b style="color: #20B2AA">Pumpkin</b> <b style="color: #DAA520">Pie</b> Chat Contribs 23:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.