Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional reptiles


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional reptiles

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Ill-defined list, necessarily incomplete and never will be. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BenTels (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is this meant to be a dab page? Is it a superlist of other lists that links them together? Bearian (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't know if it's meant to be a disambiguation page; it makes no such claim. It may be an attempt at a superlist, but it also lists animals itself without further explanation. Whether it is or not, the topic is unmanageably ill-defined ("well-referenced examples of reptiles in literature, film, television, comics, animation, video games and mythology, organized by species" -- what is that?) and therefore the list or strata of lists will never be verifiably complete or correct. -- BenTels (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Extra comment: The thought occurs that the author might have been aiming for a list of all fictional reptiles that are notable enough to qualify for their own articles. If that is the case, I simply don't see the point of this list, as it is a duplication of category:Fictional reptiles. -- BenTels (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment/reply Ehh, I was attempting to, like stated above, be a sort of disambiguation page to list the various fictional-reptile lists but... I guess it didn't come out as good as I'd hoped. In any case it could very easily be reworked to be more like a disambiguation page if that is the consensus we reach, but I'm not sure where to place the "other" reptiles. (many of the already-existing articles such as List of fictional snakes are a bit on the short-side as it is. Even if you were to consolidate every single sub article into this one list, the size would probably not exceed more than a few ten thousand kb. Again, I don't mind deletion, reworking, merging, redirecting or anything else; I'd just like a community consensus on the best course of action. Ncboy2010 (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That there's also a category is not a valid deletion argument; see WP:NOTDUP. Lists and categories are complementary navigation and organization tools. postdlf (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I didn't say it was a deletion argument; I said that if it is just a listing of articles, I don't see the point. It adds nothing to the category except extra work to keep the list in synch with the category. The reason that I started the deletion debate is that I don't understand the criteria for inclusion in the list and feel that the criterion as stated is so indefinite that it makes it impossible to judge whether the list is complete or correct. For instance, why is Aladar (from Dinosaur) not on the list? An oversight? A choice? I cannot tell. What about the dragon slain by Saint George? What about the Loch Ness Monster? How about I-forget-his-name, the wise dragon from the He-Man cartoons? Or Nagini from Harry Potter? Or the Basilisk? What about Terry Pratchett's swamp dragons (occur in many of his books)? I can't tell whether they should be on the list from the stated criterion. -- BenTels (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – I see the page as an aid to navigation, like so many other list articles (e.g. List of abstract algebra topics, List of magical weapons, List of speakers in Plato's dialogues). Even though required by our notability guidelines (see WP:LISTN) the "topic" of such lists is usually not notable in the way defined there. If there were reliable sources discussing, in some general sense, speakers in Plato's dialogues, then we should not have a standalone list but an article on Speakers in Plato's dialogues which then, after a lead and some sections presenting the viewpoints found in these reliable sources, might have a section listing such speakers. Personally I think that such pages should be judged on whether they are actually useful for navigation. I greatly regret the demise, for example, of the former List of flags by design, which I found extremely useful for identifying a flag I had spotted and did not recognize. In this specific case it is not immediately obvious that the purpose will not be equally served by appropriate categorization (see Categories, lists, and navigation templates and Categories versus lists). --Lambiam 23:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since there seem to be lists hierarchically below this one, this might be better as "index of fictional reptiles." Just a reminder that lists/categories being duplicative is not a reason to delete. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep useful navigation aide, can be fixed by being sourced or unsourceable entries trimmed. c.f. List of fictional swords and its history. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SAL, you need sources to keep this article, otherwise your recommandation is not policy-based. Also WP:otherstuffexists.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SAL is a guideline, not policy. Could you point out the relevant paragraphs in WP:SAL and explain in what respect this article fails them? --Lambiam 09:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I say "policy-based" just to avoid the longer "policy or guideline-based". Also, you just have to read the second paragraph of WP:SAL to find what you're asking for: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines." In what respect the article fails that ? Even Jclemens admits it is not sourced.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But is the information unverifiable? Is the fictionality of any of the creatures listed likely to be challenged? Or is the classification in general disputed, such as that Godzilla might actually not be a mutant dinosaur but a giant ground squirrel? Lack of sources is not by itself a ground for deletion. --Lambiam 16:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Uhm, yes, the information is unverifiable. That's rather my point: the entry criteria for the list are not sufficiently clear to allow for verification of the contents of the list. -- BenTels (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is verifiable to the primary sources provided, even if no inline citations are given (The primary work listed can be interpreted as a citation of the source itself). Please note in no way that this endorses or opposed the retainment of this list, just that it was a facility to say it is unverifiable. --M ASEM  (t) 17:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The information is verifiable in the sense that one can confirm or deny that "X is a fictitious reptile". It is not verifiable with regards to the question of whether or not X belongs on the list, since the description of the list does not yield a simple yes/no criterion. Case in point: the Holy Egyptian Alligators as depicted in the Asterix comics and cartoons. Should they be on or not? They are certainly not notable a la Wikipedia, but most certainly well-referenced as characters. -- BenTels (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a facile and dismissive response. ITSUSEFUL ≠ "usefulness is irrelevant in deciding whether to keep lists that are maintained for their organizational and navigational utility." OTHERSTUFF ≠ "meaningful comparisons shall not be made even if they are relevant to the issues raised." postdlf (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as valid navigational index per WP:LISTPURP, and as complementary to Category:Fictional reptiles per WP:CLN. The claims are wholly without merit that the contents of this list are unverifiable, as the inclusion criteria is simply being 1) a fictional character, that is 2) a reptile or reptilian. Complaints about uncertain inclusion seem to rest upon the equivocation of fictional with legendary or mythical (a meaningful distinction we maintain elsewhere; "fictional" does not simply mean "does not exist", but rather "originating in fiction"), or the issue of how far down the notability scale inclusion should go, which is an ordinary editing determination commonly made for lists of this sort. Editors may decide this is only for characters that have their own articles, or that the list should be broader and include significant characters from works of fiction that have their own articles. postdlf (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (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.