Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional governments


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional governments

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia list that contains entry; "Witch's Council - Sabrina, the Teenage Witch"!

A "category" would be better for this, at it'll only show the ones of any interest. Ryan 4314  (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT an indiscriminate list of selected fictional elements from a vast universe of such elements. There are far too (hundreds of thousands?) many governments in fictional works, like every episode of Mission Impossible or Get Smart or other fiction where real governments are not used as villains, and every futuristic science fiction writing or show. A category would be better, and would be restricted to ones notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Edison (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. "Fictional government" too wide a criterion to make a manageable list.--Boffob (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete clear violation of WP:NOT. JBsupreme (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case citations would certainly be available, so this is not a reason to delete
 * Delete per WP:NOT. This trivial cruft/clutter belongs elsewhere, not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is exactly what lists are and why lists are much more and more useful than categories. First off categories don't organize information as such, to get the same level presented here would be spread amongst dozens of category pages and even then only presently alphabetically. The context would be utterly lost whereas one can easily overview this list to quickly assess different series as well as an overall survey of fictional governments. It's not presented sensationally and all and the items can be sourced to the originating properties. This is useful information presented concisely and in context perfect for fiction writers, researchers and fans of such. Wikipedia is not made better by labeling it as cruft and deleting it. -- Banj e  b oi   23:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN and WP:SALAT and per Benjiboi. If it is necessary to make this a list of only notable fictional governments then this is accomplished by trimming the non-notable ones. If the list is too broad, then the solution is to split it into more manageable lists, as per the relevant guideline. A lack of sources is not a reason to delete anything with verifiable information; every item on this list is verifiable to the published fictional work in which it exists. If the source isn't cited here it may be cited on an article to which this list links, we do not require every fact to be cited everywhere it appears in Wikipedia, especially if the citation is only a wikilink click away. And "better as a category" is not a reason to delete a list, as lists and categories complement each other. DHowell (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because something can be "verified" does not make it notable or encyclopedic as per Wikipedia policies. JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And just because you are able to link to WP:NOT and say the words "clear violation" does not make it one. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Undecided - I was going to say if List of governments existed that could justify this list, but it does not exist. It would be very hard to make this a usefully complete list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a useful list for organization and navigation, redlinks help generate new content in a way that no category ever can, primary deletion criteria appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is unconvincing. - Dravecky (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen this argument before, I find it a bit bizarre, keeping an article full of red links in the hope that it will generate more articles (probably trivial ones in this case) shouldn't be justification for inclusion. Ryan 4314   (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not bizarre as red links are one way we build Wikipedia. If you eliminate the list and have only a category - which arguably many users don't even use - then only existing articles can even be seen and only if they are categorized correctly and only if you are on the right category page. A list addresses all those issues as well as pointing out which articles likely need to be written. An informed reader looking at the list might be surprised that an obvious article doesn't yet exist and may ... write an article. I know, it's a lot easier to delete articles (and lists) but people do follow redlinks and write articles. This is, in part, why we have lists. -- Banj e  b oi   19:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to delete this article to delete this article because of some "conspiracy of ease", I want to delete it because it's trivial rubbish. Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for admitting that you want to delete this article because you don't like it. DHowell (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never denied not liking trivial rubbish (it even says so on my user page!), but that doesn't make my nomination (or anyone else's Delete votes) any less valid. This is not some conspiracy to delete every article from Wikipedia, just to replace this with a much more useful category.  Ryan 4314   (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But as the category already exists (so there is no need to "replace" anything) and several people apparently find a list more useful than the category, why should your opinion take precedence over theirs? DHowell (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry when I say "replace" I meant that the already existent category would then take over the role "providing a list of fictional governments to our readers", once this is deleted. I do not believe this list if useful, as stated before it's full of trivia, lacks references and is vulnerable to OR.
 * "My opinion take precedence over theirs?" What are you talking about???? This is why we're having a deletion debate, to see what everyone thinks, this is not "me versus you", this isn't some secret conspiracy by me to take over Wikipedia.
 * I also think your above argument to JBsupreme is hypocritical, "just because you are able to link to WP:NOT and say the words "clear violation" does not make it one", then (in that same edit) you posted to me a link, accusing me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ryan 4314   (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2008 (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.