Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional raccoons


 * 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin close) - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional raccoons

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

This is just unsourced trivia clutter/cruft at best. It should be noted: a prod was on this but was removed by DGG, with the reason of "will be controversial, so use afd". I find it a little hard to believe DGG was just going through prods to find the article in the first place. He and I don't agree on these articles, so I personally feel he is watching my edits. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * comment If you doubt I go through PRODs regularly, look at my deletion log, where usually every day or two, I delete a few of the expired prods. They're among the 700 articles I have deleted in 2008 already.  Or look at some of the PROD2s on current PRODs. I place them regularly also. And yes, I remove PROD tags when I think that there might reasonably be a debate, whether or not I am going to actually support the article.  DGG (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Raccoons are cute (one of my favorite animals besides otters, of course), but this is just a cruft-y list of fictional characters (many of whom are red linked) laced with original research. Violates WP:NOT. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTS, maybe snowball it. Surely this is verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists. The article's list is discriminate and verifiable.  It is also consistent with our First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on fictional character/animal types.  Also, keep per WP:ITSCRUFT vote above.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Citrouilles, how is this a discriminate list? I'm sure it can be verifiable, but lots of things can be verifiable, yet are not on wiki. They also have to be notable and useful, and of general encylopedic nature. WP:NOT indicates that even if something is verifiable, it doesn't merit inclusion. Also, your logic is that if any article gets a comment of "x-cruft", it should automatically stay, which I don't find to be a very useful method of discussion. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an organized list that focuses only on fictional raccoons. Ergo, it is discriminate. This list is notable as it demonstrates the numerous appearacnes of raccoons as major elements of many diverse kinds of works of fiction. The article is useful, because it provides a coherent reference of these appearances. I, like many others, find "cruft" as a non-argument, so whenever I see it, it tends to indicate that the article is actually probably worth keeping. Thus, the article is discriminate, verfiable, notable, useful, and encyclopedic and thus is an example of what Wikipedia is. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ah, I don't wish for a war here, so I'll just say a few comments, and then we can take this to user talk. I think this is an indiscriminate list, because the bounds of "fictional character" don't exist. I can create one off the top of my head now, and that would fulfill your discriminate test. As I said before, verifiability doesn't indicate merit for inclusion. Notable and useful? I seriously doubt those claims. Who would really search for fictional raccoons? While certain fictional raccoons are notable, a list of all fictional raccoons, imo, is not. Also, I have yet to seen any traditional encyclopedia (which is, after all, what the word "encyclopedic" refers to) include lists such as this. Not that all of these lists are not useful, I think many of them are, but I think this is bound to become plagued with inclusions from lots of entries that will be hopelessly unencyclopedic. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not an indiscriminate list, because it only focuses on notable instances of fictional raccoons. The article is hardly unwieldly. My discriminate test if I have one would be those that appear in published works of fiction, whether they be books, films, songs, or video games. Thus verfiability in primary and secondary sources is what matters. No one would seriously expect the list to include something you or I created today and that no one beyond us knew about that. Thus, suggesting as much is not a valid argument. Verfiability in numerous sources does indeed indicate merit for inclusion per our policies and guidelines. It is without any plausible doubt notable and useful. The fact that such an article exists and multiple users have edited it is irrefutable proof that people would indeed search for fictional raccoons. The article is hopefully encyclopedic as one our chief policies states we are NOT just a traditional general encyclopedia, but a combination of specialized enycyclopedias and general encyclopedias and even almanacs. If you look through enough books with encyclopedia and alamanac in their titles, which I have many of, trust me, you'll find many, many lists. As far as being "bound to become plagued", well Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither are any of us, so we cannot delete an article on what "might" happen. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The kind of encyclopedia that would include such a list would be something like The Encyclopedia of Animals and Nature in Mythology. Also, the 'who would search for it' argument isn't valid or relevant.  There are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't think anyone would ever search for, such as List of awards and nominations for American Idol contestants and List of MTV channels.  That doesn't mean it doesn't belong. Celarnor Talk to me  07:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In the interest of not becoming as lame as this, what appears to be wiki concensus, and preserving harmony, I withdraw my delete and now abstain. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 08:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, many are highly notable. I highly suspect some animation or pop culture book etc. will have something secondary to ref it with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Many of the entries contained within are notable in and of themselves, outside of the list.  It is also not an indiscriminate list, and thus includable under the first pillar.  This makes it especially encyclopedic, despite the argument of Hobbeslover to the contrary.  Collection of information in indexes is highly encyclopedic.  Celarnor Talk to me  06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand to include such noted Raccoons as Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton . Edison (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm afraid I don't have any policies to throw at this; I say this is very relevant. I also contest the statement that this is random cruft or trivia; it's clearly a (well, at least intended as a) discriminate list of notable articles/subjects, like many others on Wikipedia. Does anyone complain about Wolves in fiction? At worst this should be merged into the raccoon article. Estemi (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 07:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 07:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see no convincing argument for deletion. There is no policy against "cruft" or "trivia" &mdash; or even "kipple" for that matter. Lists and categories (in this case Category:Fictional raccoons) complement each other. It's not original research to note that Bert Raccoon, Melissa Raccoon, and Ralph Raccoon from The Raccoons or Meeko from Pocahontas are fictional raccoons. --Pixelface (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly discriminate list that could, after all, use a little cleanup (what article couldn't?). Accusations of wikistalking seem gratuitous. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If I had just looked at the tile, I would have thought this absurd, like so many things I'm unfamiliar with--but then I looked at the article. It needs exact references, but they are almost all of them worth the entries here.  DGG (talk) 22:04, 19 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.