Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional monarchs


 * 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. Tone 06:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

List of fictional monarchs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional monarchs have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep There's some active editing of this page which is muddying the water. As the nomination is a cut-and-paste drive-by without any WP:BEFORE or specifics, there's no case to answer.  There is obviously huge notability for fictional cases such as Hamlet or King Arthur and the nomination is blatantly vexatious in failing to address this. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - worth noting that List of fictional monarchs (fictional nations) has just been created as a split from this article.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm rather surprised that anyone has managed to go through any education system, presumably in an English or German speaking country, without realising that fictional monarchs have had a cultural impact. I mean, didn't you get a passing acquaintance with the works of William Shakespeare? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * While there are definitely some notable fictional monarchs, I don't think having a few justifies a long list of original research pop culture trivia such as this. Waxworker (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD discussions are about whether an article should exist or not. That is an argument for editing the article, not deleting it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. We do not lack for potential sources; a WP:BEFORE search of Google Scholar and Google Books for "fictional monarchs", "fictional kings", and "fictional queens" turns up plenty of sources (many of which I am admittedly unable to access). I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional monarchs, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.
 * For the first point, "fictional monarchs" is clearly delineated. There is quite a number of blue links in the list - both for fictional persons, and for real persons which have been given a fictional version - so we don‘t not just "have a few". And there's more if we take the List of fictional monarchs (fictional nations) into account (even so I am undecided if the split is a good idea or not). Fictional monarchs do appear on Wikipedia and so are not trivial. It's possible that some trimming is order, but that would not be a reason for deletion.
 * For the second point, as stated above, a WP:BEFORE search shows secondary sources on different groupings fictional monarchs, so the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.
 * As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself has its warrant. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Phil Bridger. Jclemens (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:KEEPPER. Please expand your rationale. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Phil Bridger made a cogent argument that this is an encyclopedic topic here. I find it compelling. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Contains plenty of non-notable characters or characters from non-notable works, too inclusive. Category is enough, this is just fancruft list of trivia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to expand your rationale to include a policy-based reason for deletion and/or discuss how the essays you've referenced without linking actually apply to this particular AfD. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Policy link? How about failing WP:LISTN? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I called for a speedy keep above but instead it was relisted even though were no delete !votes; tsk. For avoidance of doubt, let's be clear that my position is that we should keep this per policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.  Now that we have an actual delete !vote, let's consider its claim that "Category is enough...".    This argument that we should delete the list because we have an equivalent category is contrary to our guideline WP:NOTDUPE which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:24, 8 May 2021 (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.