Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books within the Discworld series


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

List of fictional books within the Discworld series

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An article of such monumental insignificance that it isn't even listed on the Discworld template. I forgot it existed until I discovered it was clogging up the Category:Discworld list with a bunch of redirects. If any article could be described as a list of useless trivia, this would be it.  Serendi pod ous  12:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Fancruft. I've heard it said that a weed is any plant out of place. Well, this is out of place. I'm sure there's a Discworld wiki or fansite that would benefit from this. It looks (through fan eyes) rather fun but it isn't appropriate here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Discworld & Pratchett Wiki. Agree with Ka Faraq Gatri, this is definitely out of place as  fancruft, but the list may be better suited for a in-world specific wiki like the one above. I Jethrobot (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Transwiki These are generally not major fictional elements (like, oh, characters). Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of fictional books &mdash; most of it is there already. Matchups 01:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Fancruft and original research does not become any less fancruft and original research because you put it into another extremely long ill-defined list substantially consisting of fancruft and original research. Transwiki is the better option, IMO. Personally, I think we need to look at transwiki'ing or deleting most if not all of Category:Lists of fictional books for the same reason. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: With no verifiability due to the lack of references, the content is original research by synthesis at best. The content itself consists of a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reception, significance or even real-world context. Because of this, the list does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Besides this, there are no reliable secondary sources that cover these fictional books to presume that they meet the general notability guideline or that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources to presume that it's appropriate per the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. This article is an unnecessary split of Discworld and an unneeded content fork. Also, the list falls into what what Wikipedia is not by being an indiscriminate collection of information, so I believe that it has no place in Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, merge, or transwiki and redirect. Afdcruft.  With common senseverifiability due to the easily available references of the book series itself, the content is unoriginal research at best. The content itself could be improved with reception.  Thus, the list meets the criteria of appropriate topics for lists.  Besides this, there are likely reliable secondary sources that cover these fictional books that figure into a major well-known series to presume that they meet the general notability guideline or that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources to presume that it is appropriate per the criteria of notability for stand-alone lists. This article is a necessary split of Discworld and a needed content fork for those interested in this notable series.  Also, the list falls into what Wikipedia is by being a discriminate collection of information, so I, the article's authors, and those who come here looking for this information believe that it has a place in Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.19.130 (talk) 05:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate and unsourced collection of information without real-world or even in-universe significance.  Sandstein   05:25, 5 July 2011 (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.