Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional guidebooks


 * 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, appears to satisfy WP:LIST. Could do with a serious tidy-up, though. Black Kite 18:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional guidebooks

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

Not encyclopedic content. Seems to me to fail WP:NOT. Prewitt81 (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete it's WP:INTERESTING but hardly seems encyclopedic. Is a Pokedex truly a guidebook? JJL (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete totally unencyclopedic, fail WP:NOT Chris!  c t 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And this !vote is contentless and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. EDIT: That's better.  I don't believe that this falls under any of those criteria.  It isn't a directory per se, as it only links within Wikipedia.  It is also not a list of loosely associated topics, as the things inside it are quite strongly related to each other.  We have a list of fictional dogs, a list of fictional companies, a list of fictional doctors, and a list of fictional currencies, among several others that follow this formula.  Cel  Talk to me  04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Well, it is a list, not a directory. This part I agree. But the items listed are loosely associated. They are all frictional documents that existed in frictional universe, not necessarily guidebooks. As for those other articles or lists about frictional dogs or companies, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. They are irrelevant to this discussion. Chris!  c t 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They are not. The dogs that are in list of fictional dogs are fictional animals that exist in a fictional universe.  They aren't necessarily golden retrievers.  These all show precedent that fictional things can be within lists if the subject of those lists can be deemed interesting, notable, and useful.  This isn't the WP:POKEMON that WP:WAX is written to prevent. Celarnor Talk to me  04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Lists such as these are important for redlink development and serve as a navigational aid for those reading about the topic.  Beyond being useful, they are in actuality quite encyclopedic.  If you were to look in the index of an encyclopedia containing an entry on fictional guidebooks, if the article itself did not lisat them, then they would have a place there in the index.  Lists such as these are our index and are necessary to serve in that role.  This one in specific does not contain original research, links to notable material, and is verifiable based on those articles.   Cel  Talk to me  04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is pretty fantastic. It is not a directory of anything; it's a list, which we have a long and storied history of creating and keeping as encyclopedic. The main problems with this article lie in the name, and in the introduction, which reads like OR (who decides what a fantasy guidebook is?). Some of these works are certainly guidebooks, but some are encyclopedias and other reference works that may not guide. Perhaps List of fictional reference works would be a more appropriate title, less open to controversy over whether the work is guiding anyone or not, feel a little less fantasy-universe oriented, and be of greater interest to the encyclopedists among us. -- phoebe/ (talk) 06:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not a great article, but I think that it's OK. I'd suggest removing the fictional guidebooks which appear in works of fiction and keeping the real, published fictional guidebooks like Phaic Tăn though. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That article could be List of non-fictional fictional guidebooks. I made a funny.  Cel  Talk to me  12:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added that section on "Real fictional guidebooks" yesterday. Possibly it should be split off elsewhere. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTS. Klausness (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge I agree that the title might be improved but the topic is sound. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Viable topic with examples like the Necronomicon that are independently notable, too. Needs expansion in terms of its intro and sourcing, but I see nothing wrong with this topic. 23skidoo (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not in great shape as it exists, but a valid topic for a WP:LIST. And kinda neat, actually, especially in light of all those encyclopedias documenting imaginary places. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs cleanup, not deletion. You might like to try raising concerns at the talkpage of articles, before leaping straight to AfD. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Good points are brought up by those suggesting the article be kept. This was my first nomination of an article for deletion.  In the future, I'll take Quiddity's sound advice and go to the talk page first. Prewitt81 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good man. Also, the Article Rescue Squad is another good place to go before you jump off the deep end and go straight to AfD. Celarnor Talk to me  04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a silly article and I can understand why you nominated it. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - No assertion of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:LIST just fine - WP:NOT doesn't apply here.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Important content and useful, verifiable through the main articles., just as for any list. DGG (talk) 04:52, 20 March 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.