Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deities


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 08:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional deities

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is totally unreferenced, and what makes it meet WP:LISTN/WP:NFICTION? Anyway, the list is a mess since it also lists 'real' deities like Chernobog (through I suggest not discussing here the fine line between a 'real' and 'ficitonal' deities, lol - but more seriously, it is worth noting that Fictional deities is just a redirect to this list, and the term is AFAIT not defined properly anywhere, too). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Any gods out there? Perceptions of religion from Star Wars and Star Trek; Melting the Ice Gods: The Creation and Destruction of Old and New Gods in British Fiction, 1880–1955; Filming the gods: Religion and Indian cinema; Heathen gods in Old English literature; Dying gods in twentieth-century fiction;  Do the Gods Wear Capes?: spirituality, fantasy, and superheroes; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list is plainly notable and of encyclopedic interest, even if its current citation state leaves, ahem, much to be desired. Notability, as always, rests on the availability of reliable sources in the world for the article's subject (there are plenty), not on what is already in the article, and still less on what other articles ought to be (better) written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. It's in a poor state at the moment, but it could and should be pruned entirely to fictional deities with actual Wikipedia pages.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I've pruned the redirects and links to non-fiction deities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As an addendum, it seems better to rename this to List of deities in fiction, since an atheist would consider all deities fictional.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * A fair point, but I think that would implicitly broaden it to include depictions of deities from actual religions in works presented as fiction. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * KEEP A list article does not need references when the information it claims is in the articles it links to. Perfect valid list article, aids in navigation, links to related articles.   D r e a m Focus  11:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Point of order - Wikipedia is "not a reliable source", so no, lists always need references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles need reliable sources, not lists linking to those articles, nor do categories have references in them.  D r e a m Focus  11:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Lists are articles (the operative phrase is "anywhere in article space"), and the category thing is a smokescreen. Try taking a list to FLC if you think otherwise and see for yourself! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I think some editors need to read WP:LISTN. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.User:Davidstewartharvey
 * The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them, and they all say different things. Any list that includes non-notable items is in peril (to the point of certainty) of including fancruft and other types of nonsense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the only stand alone list standard on Wikipedia - as it says the list of subjects have to be notable. At this moment in time I do not see any notability of this list. If a Wikipedia article on the list already proves its notability within its own page it does not need to be referenced.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, LISTN doesn't say that it's the only standard, quite the opposite: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group [emphasis added]...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." We have many articles on fictional deities, as seen in Category:Fictional deities. So this would seem to satisfy WP:LISTPURP (and that caveat in LISTN) as a navigational list. And where we have a list of articles, complaints about sourcing within the list are irrelevant to deletion, because the sole question is whether citations should be migrated over from the linked articles or not. Obviously they can be if editors want to, and if they don't want to we still know the sources exist, and so can't pretend the entries are unverifiable and use that as an excuse to delete the list. That's not using Wikipedia articles as sources, that's policy. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP as index of articles and complement to Category:Fictional deities per WP:CLN regardless of whether it also satisfies WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ARTN. I think that this page should be more focused on the concept of "Deities in fiction", with the list items serving as examples of some larger themes of how deities are used in fictional works. The current list is choppy and uneven, and I understand the point of view of the people currently saying Delete. But WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not diminish the subject's notability, and I think that it's obvious that the concept of "Deities in fiction" is a notable subject for an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, it links to existing articles of a useful topic. Pikavoom (talk) 07:32, 30 June 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.