Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional penguins


 * 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 based on many precedents from similar past AfDs, as discussed below by users DGG, Calathan, Cyclopia, and Boing. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional penguins

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Almost entirely unreferenced list of fictional penguins, which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This isn't neccesarily an appropriate topic for a list, and unless most of these entries are speedily sourced, WP:BURDEN implies that the list should be deleted. Claritas § 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Most entries are linked to Wikipedia articles and those articles have references (as with many lists), so I don't think the list requires additional references of its own for every entry (unless perhaps the linked-to article doesn't actually mention the penguin in question). I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not usually a strong Keep argument, but there is a pretty big precedent in the shape of a whole load of similar lists - eg dogs, ducks, dinosaurs, rabbits, raccoons, weasels, worms, wolves (and that's just checking three letters of the alphabet). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No need to duplicate references between articles and lists. Artw (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In the past, articles of this sort have regularly been kept. See for example, Articles for deletion/List of fictional deer and moose, Articles for deletion/List of fictional turtles, Articles for deletion/List of fictional raccoons, Articles for deletion/List of fictional dogs (2nd nomination).  I think the list should be sourced, however, even if the individual artilces are sourced. Calathan (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a popular article. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep articles on significant types of characters or theme in notable works are appropriate encyclopedic  content. It does not fail not directory, because it's discriminate--it is intended to be  only about those in works with Wikipedia articles  (there are a number of others  without such sources in the article at present, and they should be removed). WP:SALAT says "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." Unfortunately the third sentence of this guideline is invalid, being in conflict with the very basic policy of NOT PAPER--there is no reason to limit the number of lists and more than to limit the number of articles.   DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:IINFO and WP:SALAT because the criteria for inclusion is too broad to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. What is left is nothing but namedropping and trivia. The contents of the article have nothing to do with each other besides the unencyclopedic cross-categorization of "penguins" and "fiction". I'm quite disturbed at the consensus above that ignores these key maintenance guidelines. It's lists like this that we should concentrate on deleting and I applaud the nom for the effort.   Them  From  Space  11:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - three of the five keep !votes are based on arguments which are widely considered to be erroneous - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification to keep, the argument that it is popular is basically just a simplified version of WP:POPULARPAGE and the argument by Calathan basically ignores the fact that consensus can change and also shares problems with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced, and certainly not all the penguins listed have sources on their main article. There's also an issue that some penguins on the list don't have articles. If WP:SALAT is "invalid", you need to take that up on the talk page or at the village pump. At the moment, I believe it reflects consensus. Claritas § 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I'm not sure that any policy states that entries in a list shouldn't be sourced simply because the entities listed are sourced". We need to think about the purpose of sourcing - is it to blindly follow a rule, or is it to provide readers with a way to back up the assertions made in an article? It's clearly the latter, and readers have such a way, by clicking through to the individual Wikipedia articles - and if any of those are not sourced, that's a reason to challenge the articles themselves rather than the entire list. So, while I agree that the question of independently sourcing lists is a valid issue for discussion itself, it is not a reason for deletion - we delete articles that are unsourceable (rather than just unsourced), and most entries here are clearly not unsourceable, as they are actually (indirectly) sourced. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is also a double-edged tool. On the one hand, we don't keep crap just because there's other crap elsewhere, but on the other hand, we develop Wikipedia policies by consensus - and concensus often relies on precedent, which is itself a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So I think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, while not a strong argument on its own, can make a valid contribution to forming a consensus - in this case, the fact that articles like this have historically been kept when brought to AfD makes a valid contribution towards the discussion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the consensus to include most of the other lists dates back to at least 2008, "precedent" is not really a valid argument, in that consensus may have changed since. WP:FL? implies that citations of reliable sources are necessary for lists. Claritas § 13:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree that consensus can change, yes - and I think it's good to bring such lists to AfD from time to time - but people can, and will, use precedent (even if it's two years old) to help make their decisions. And again, the absence of independent sourcing is perhaps a reason for adding available sourcing (which clearly exists - it's in most of the individual articles), not for deleting the list - we delete things that are unsourceable, not just unsourced or, as in this case, only indirectly sourced. WP:FL? defines characteristics for Featured Lists (which are considerably more than simple lists of links to other Wikipedia articles). It is not a rule to be interpreted literally and followed blindly for all lists. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. (WP:SALAT) I've checked though the entries and found that only Chilly Willy, Frobisher (Doctor Who), Opus the Penguin, Tux, and Prinny that have stand-alone articles. The rest are redirects, links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree with ThemFromSpace that the this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the Wikipedia is not a directory of the WP:NOT policy. Just because there are other lists exist with similar issues doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how this list fails WP:IINFO or WP:SALAT. Whether something is a fictional penguin is easily determinable, and the number of notable fictional penguins would certainly be finite and of a manageable size for a list.  Furthermore, being a fictional penguin links all of the listed characters in an obvious way, making the list well defined.  The arguements for deletion seem to be based primarily on the poor quality of the current article, specifically that it currently includes a large number of non-notable entries.  However, the solution to that issue is to remove the non-notable entries, not to delete the entire list. Calathan (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation in accordance with WP:Source list.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional penguins is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional penguins? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:37, 20 June 2010 (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.