Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional nannies


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

List of fictional nannies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, unfocused, and no evidence that fictional nannies are notable as a group. Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete an unsourced article. There is a topic that would lend itself to an article nannies in fiction. I am less than sure we have adequate third party analysis sources to support such an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Fictional nannies is all we need for this - the list doesn't add anything.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDUPE states that having a category already is not a valid reason to delete a list article. Also WP:WEDONTNEEDIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.   D r e a m Focus  01:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have found a few sources that discuss fictional nannies as a group. I am uncertain if it is enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. I agree with John Pack Lambert that this topic lends itself to a "Nannies in fiction" article rather than a list. I could also see this information being placed in the main "Nanny" article in a condensed format. Apologies for the length and I hope this does not come across as spam. Just trying to help with the discussion. Here are the sources I found with an explanation for each. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nanny Knows Best: The History of the British Nanny has a chapter on nannies in fiction and film. New Boundaries in Political Science Fiction has a brief sentence comparing the title character of "Robbie" to a common nanny type in fiction. A review of |The Rise and Fall of the British Nanny says that it includes commentary on fictional nannies, though I admittedly do not have full access to the source to confirm this. This New York Times article talks about "the nanny novel", and this Jezebel source refers to "the nanny film" as its own group. There are quite a few lists on favorite fictional nannies by Barnes and Noble, Sylist.co.uk, and Refinery 29, and this Cleveland.com mentions how real-life nannies were inspired by some fictional nannies. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete We have Nanny already, so whatever’s analysis from the above sources may be relevant can go there, not a separate page. Reywas92Talk 19:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would seem appropriate to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per Reywas92. Reyk YO! 21:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Ten of the blue links have their own article and one is a redirect to a list of characters page. They are notable for being nannies, that is their defining characteristic.   D r e a m Focus  13:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still too short an article regardless. ミラP 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Being short is not a valid reason to delete.  D r e a m Focus  01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But it's also a valid reason not to keep. ミラP 02:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not a reason I gave to keep, I having valid reasons listed above.  D r e a m Focus  03:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. While I acknowledge the above's statement that "being a nanny" is a defining characteristic for these fictional characters, it's still too short an article worth keeping separately. ミラP 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then are you suggesting it be MERGED? Not all entries here are listed there.   D r e a m Focus  01:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll just put them at Nanny. ミラP 02:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nanny already sufficiently covers the topic, and the article is not so long that a WP:SPLIT is necessary. The sources found by Aoba47 above can be added to that article, but as this current list in unsourced, nothing needs to be preserved or merged.  Rorshacma (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect or merge to Nanny - seems like a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:29, 4 December 2019 (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.