Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rulers


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional rulers
This is a classic example of an indiscriminate collection of information. The subject is unlimited, or at any rate any attempt to produce something approaching a comprehensive list would involve terabytes of information. It has little content beyond links to other articles, and would therefore better serve as a category, if indeed it is needed in the first place. Vizjim 13:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the reasons given above. Vizjim 13:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Lukas (T. 13:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, contains (for instance) info previously at Emperor, this is a valid list. Some more references would be an improvement, but not having these is not a reason to delete. Well, let's say, the attempt to delete is "indiscriminate". I don't see why Notability (fiction) would exclude thematic lists like this one. Soon we'd have to delete list of legendary kings of Britain then too, while most of them are fictional. --Francis Schonken 14:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No - it's not to do with fictionality. The list of legendary kings of Britain is a finite category - there are only a certain number of them, and it makes sense to collect the information together in one easily used list.  The List of fictional rulers, by contrast, could include any king, queen, sultan, emperor, dictator, chieftain, sheik, khan, etc, to have appeared in any work of fiction, in any language, ever.  This makes it an infinite list, in other words an indiscriminate collection of information (since the job is simply too big to be completed or worked on in any kind of systematic way).  Better by far to create a category to cover this, which all of these entries could be included within. Vizjim 14:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, we already have categories for "Fictional monarchs", "Fictional kings", Fictional queens", etc. Far better to expand and standardise these than to try to mainatin an unmaintainable list. Vizjim 14:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only conclude you start to invent indiscriminate rules supporting your AfD nomination. Quite disgusting. Where is that so-called rule that finiteness vs. infiniteness has anything to do with whether a list can be made in wikipedia? You just invented it on the spot. Wikipedia deals with a lot of "infinite" lists (if we take infinite according to your definition); But the list at hand isn't even infinite (you just constructed an akward definition of "infinite" in order to make this list seem "infinite". Disgusting).
 * Also, if there's a good running set of categories, there's no argument that for that reason a list on the same topic should be excluded. Where did you get that? Obviously not in wikipedia's current policies and guidelines, see for instance Categories, lists, and series boxes: "Increasingly, multiple entries to fields of knowledge are provided [...]" (which is followed by an example of a set of articles that are connected as well by lists as by categories as by series boxes).
 * Note that, for instance, King Ubu isn't listed in any of the "fictional rulers" categories (nor should he necessarily be, the article is on the play with the same name, not the fictional ruler): much better to keep this fictional monarch in the list of fictional rulers.
 * Note also that Notability (fiction) *discourages* to make separate articles on secondary fictional characters. In many fictional universes, for instance, the emperors are the secondary characters (e.g. in Futurama). So, if one wanted to have these in categories, articles would need to be created (or at least categorised redirects). Well, no, the list, where the rulers are listed grouped by the work they come from has a separate function of it's own... would need an "infinite" number of subcategories to do the same grouping by categories.
 * Please don't make up your own rules. Please have a look at the existing ones instead. --Francis Schonken 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - note that verifiability via reliable sources of course limits such list notability-wise, so no indiscriminate accumulation of fiction could be possible. That's why I said above that the list should better have more references, so that it is easier for those who do maintenance on such lists (and e.g. throw out the non-notable content). --Francis Schonken 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Deli nk 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. ScottW 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mr Stephen 15:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, better to have them all on one list than having dozens of small lists. No use as a category because most of these people shouldn't have articles. Kusma (討論) 15:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see what the use of this list is. With every list in Wikipedia I always ask myself what unique information does this list show, and other then the fact that SciFi fans are very active contributors to Wikipedia, I just don't see any real contribution from this list to wikipedia as a whole. (note this by far isn't the only List I have this issue with). -TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. "Ruler" is so vague that the qualifying entries are not only unlimited, but the resulting grouping is rather useless.  More carefully narrowed and defined lists are preferred.  Postdlf 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Postdlf. --M e rovingian { T C @ } 15:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. After asking Francis Schonken to keep to the WP:CIVIL guidelines (rather than labelling my contributions "disgusting"), he requested a clarification on which part of WP:NOT I feel this article breaks.  I think it breaks guideline #1 - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons".  Apologies if that was unclear.  I also "apparantly had a fit" (sic) in explaining "unlimited" during the nomination: though his explanation of why is unclear, I will be happy to clarify if anyone can explain what is unclear about it.  Vizjim 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't "indiscriminate", and isn't a list of "persons" (fictional characters are afaik not persons).
 * Compare, for example List of real people appearing in fictional context - now that's a list of real persons. "List of fictional rulers" is not. As far as WP:NOT #1 (or any other description on that page) is concerned, "List of real people appearing in fictional context" is not indiscriminate (yet currently a longer list than "List of fictional rulers"). Neither is "List of fictional rulers" a page listing indiscriminate content as defined by WP:NOT. Further specifications for fictional content are in notability (fiction), which doesn't exclude listing of significant fictional content. Neither does it exclude lists of "real persons in fictional context", nor of "fictional rulers". --Francis Schonken 16:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, best used as a category. I also dislike Francis's rule lawyering about fictional characters not being persons. You know damn well what we mean. --Golbez 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And your rule lawyering with WP:NOT where it doesn't remotely apply, is that OK? The problem is not the persons (I don't know why Vizjim even started about that). The principle at stake is the indiscriminate epithet with which you lot want to rule-lawyer, where it doesn't remotely apply. --Francis Schonken 18:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Useful as a category, but as a list, it's listcruft.  --John Nagle 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate listeritis per nom, although it would be funny to have the gazillion dark overlords from cheap fantasy novels crowd this list. Sandstein 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the list is only superficially discriminate as to who is included. RasputinAXP   c  20:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It may come in handy for some, and doesn't hurt anybody (Wikipedia is not paper, remember?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete potentially infinite, keep as category only. SM247 20:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful list for those researching fictional rulers. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, how exactly? Postdlf 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Providing a list of them, obviously. If you're researching a topic, a list of things falling under that topic is pretty useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess my question was more how is this actually a coherent "topic" one can "research"? Beyond compiling such a list...it seems that's about as far as this vague of a grouping can go, unless you subdivide.  Postdlf 22:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (I know it's an unorthodox vote, but...) Split the list up into more specific and useful lists if possible. Failing that, delete as better served by a category (per Categories, lists, and series boxes) as the organisation of this list isn't especially useful. Z iggurat 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per User:Vizjim's excellent arguments Bwithh 22:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Nom. J Milburn 22:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but only if replaced by a category. Deco 23:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changed my mind. A list of fictional rulers can provide useful context, such as the work of fiction they're from and the fictional territory that they ruled. This brief context makes the list much more useful than a category. Deco 23:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft in the second degree. Danny Lilithborne 01:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete Yeah it violates the rules, yes its listcruft but it is kind of fun. I can't think of another website that would be a good home for it but I hope someone can.  jbolden1517Talk  01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you couldn't put this on a user subpage despite its deletion from article space. Postdlf 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Although this invitation was addressed at someone else I took it up. Page now available at User:Francis Schonken/List of fictional rulers. I choose to explicitly mention I don't think this an ideal situation, but the best I could make of it for the time being. Anyway, people with ideas can always leave me a message on my talk page. tx! --Francis Schonken 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as yet another sprawling, useless, unmaintanable list. Reyk  YO!  07:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; indiscriminate is what this is. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Indesciminate and non-usefull Eluchil404 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep! We all love sci-fi. It would be awful to feel deprived of such a funny list. Think also to all sci-fi writers who can check that their idea is not already existing. --DLL 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (me, again) - RE:luctant keep. Alas, we should give departure to every fun in WP : encyclopedias, if serious, must not refer to unknown music, Alabama gulches, loosy football clubs and so on. Did you try a random search ? Did you try Most_Referenced_Articles, where you find : Race_(U.S._census) (43397 links), and Album_(music) (15395 links) ... ? --DLL 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because those terms are linked every US city and town article and every musical album article on Wikipedia, respectively. A lot of towns, a lot of albums. How this has the slightest connection with the article under nomination I haven't the slightest clue. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article under nomination is no more encyclopedic than plenty of things found in WP - I gave some examples, that's all - how many US townlets census results should really appear in a real encyclopedia ? I love this article, but I'd like WP to keep an appearance. Not an appearance of serious, nor definite usefulness, something mixed with our world (fantasy, fun, science, knowledge). --DLL 20:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty much a textbook case of WP is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information: any sufficiently complete list would be utterly impossible to navigate for users. The how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin rulelawyering doesn' help. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Not an arbitrary collection (being a "ruler" is a key attribute of a fictional character; contrast: "list of fictional characters with blue eyes"). It's better as a list than a category since not all these characters deserve articles, but conversely the fact that not all the entries have their own articles is not a clear reason to delete the list. It may need subdivision, probably not by fictional universe (this would produce too many small lists, and wouldn't serve the more useful connecting purpose): perhaps separate lists for the more common titles would be in order? Maybe it would be better to split by genre (List of fictional rulers in science fiction etc). Is it useless? No: if you want to consider the characteristics of rulers in fiction, this would be a good place to start looking. Moreover "It has little content beyond links to other articles, and would therefore better serve as a category" doesn't comply with WP:CLS. There's no reason it shouldn't, if worked upon, include more information than mere links (it appears to me that well over 50% of entries actually do already!). Further, there's no reason to limit the list to only rulers with their own articles. And just because it is likely to be permanently incomplete doesn't make it invalid. Please refer to WP:CLS before nominating lists for deletion - this seems to fit the criteria there almost perfectly! (Annotated, lists entries without articles, well-sorted, extensive and useful "see also" section, entries all linked by an important common characteristic... how is this cruft?) TheGrappler 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; It's a list I'd enjoy reading. Seems somewhat encyclopedic in an esoteric sort of way. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Complements our coverage of the fictional universe. --JJay 00:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful encyclopaedic list.  Grue   10:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unless we decide not to have articles about fictional universes in Wikipedia. -- User:Docu
 * Delete and possibly categorify. This is a potentially unlimited list, and the existence of other, also possibly unlimited lists doesn't do much to mitigate this problem. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A side-thought
Accidentally I stumbled into some asteroid-related wikipedia pages today: For me, this puts this vote (regarding a single list) a bit in perspective... especially the outrageous claim by the initiator of this vote that "any attempt to produce something approaching a comprehensive list would involve terabytes of information":
 * there are currently over 1000 "list of asteroids" pages, each listing 100 asteroids (see Category:Lists of asteroids);
 * there are currently over 100 "Meanings of asteroid names" pages, each listing some 1000 asteroids (example: Meanings of asteroid names (100001-101000)).
 * 1) I think there are less "fictional rulers" than there are registered asteroids;
 * 2) For the *notable* fictional rulers (anyway, per wikipedia notability criteria only the notable ones would be included in the fictional rulers list, and the notability criterion has apparently a slightly higher threshold for fiction than for asteroids if "visibility in the media" would be used for comparison) the meaningfullness for people's lives is often higher than that of most of the over 100000 rocks of a few cubic kilometers floating around the sun.
 * 3) Most importantly: list "size" is a lame argument from whatever side it is approached.

Note also that I must formally reject the argument that the list of fictional rulers would be difficult to maintain. I have it on my watchlist for some time now, and I suppose there are some others. I've seen no particular vandalism to the list. There were some odd reverts (just a couple as far as I can remember), but maintenance-effort-wise not comparable to anything happening on the "high profile" lists contained in wikipedia that are on my watchlist. In fact this vote cost me up to present dozens of times the amount of energy than the maintenance on that list has cost me over the last year.

So, obviously, those that argued "[...] unmaintanable list" above, weren't involved in its maintenance. "Votecruft"? Is that a word? If not, I invent it here formally: votecruft. --Francis Schonken 13:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop bandying insults around, stop rule lawyering, and calm down. Vizjim 13:51, 3 June 2006 (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.