Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional turtles


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional turtles

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

Unencyclopedic listcruft; WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. KuyaBriBri Talk 16:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this listcruft. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Other stuff exists. This is the sort of information that you would not expect to find in a paper encyclopedia. However, the fact that so many of these "List of fictional ____" articles exist is proof that at least one person found them potentially useful, and are not cruft. These lists are not in any way an indiscriminate collection of information; its a list of fictional turtles. The topic of the article is precisely defined. I fail to see how WP:NOTDIR applies; this isn't a directory or anything close to what that policy describes as a directory. These lists are easily verifiable, and each entry should be of a notable subject making the list notable. Several of these lists have come to AfD before, with the result being keep or no consensus (I could not find any that resulted in delete, but that doesn't mean there haven't been any) AfD/List of fictional dogs, AfD/List of fictional cats, AfD/List of fictional apes, and AfD/List of fictional pandas. -Atmoz (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atmoz and WP:NOTPAPER. Sean MD80 talk 17:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let's look at the reasons given for deletion. (1) WP:LISTCRUFT. This is an essay that refers to indiscriminate or trivial lists.  This list is neither. It is not indiscriminate, because there are clearly defined criteria for inclusion-- this is a  list of fictional turtles that have articles in Wikipedia, that should have articles in Wikipedia, or that are mentioned in a parent article.  Simple. (2) WP:IINFO - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As I already mentioned, this is not an indiscriminate list, there are clearly defined criteria for inclusion. (3) WP:NOTDIR.  This simply doesn't apply.  I would like to ask the nominator which of the six items found at WP:NOTDIR does this list fall under? &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Linguist and Atmoz; this is not some random collection of facts. Drmies (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is the type of information you'd see in a directory/database, like a phone book which is the example used in WP:NOT.  This list also violates WP:N as the subject of the list (the grouping of turtles from all aspects of fiction) has not been discussed nontrivially in any reliable, third-party sources. It's hard enough proving that fictional turtles are notable, but the compilation of a list of fictional turtles as the subject of its own article is a step beyond that even.  Also, per WP:SALAT this list is overly-broad in its criteria for inclusion (read: indiscriminate). It reads "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value" and concludes "be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge" This list clearly does not contribute to the state of human knowledge.  The compilation of these has no end result other than the compilation itself. Nothing can be used for comparison purposes nor does each item within the list have any bearing on the other items within it.   Them  From  Space  20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm - In my opinion, and with total respect, you've missed the point. This is not an attempt at an encyclopedia article on the topic of "Fictional turtles".  It is a navigational aid listing the current Wikipedia articles (or parts of articles) on different fictional turtles, much like a "fictional turtles" category would do, but with features a category can't have. As far as being to broad or indiscriminate, I don't see how you can say that, since it's limited to fictional turtles that are already notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article or as part of an article. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:STAND, stand-alone lists are ordinary encyclopedia articles and they should be treated to the same applications of policy and guidelines that regular articles are given. This includes notability of the subject matter (the compilation of a list of fictional turtles) and other things which Wikipedia is not. If this isn't an attempt at an encyclopedia article than it shouldn't be in the mainspace, but it should be a category as categories don't have to adhere as strictly to the policies and guidelines.  Them  From  Space  00:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. WP:STAND says that lists, as articles, are subject to the content policies (e.g., verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view), but the only mention of notability relates to the notability of people within a list. The topic of an article should be notable, but the topic of this list is "fictional turtles", not "the grouping of turtles from all aspects of fiction". (For examples of articles where an actual list is the topic rather than just the items listed, see Billboard Hot 100, AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies and Nixon's Enemies List. Such articles do not usually begin with "List of".) The topic is shown notable by many references significantly covering turtles in literature and fiction, and the many notable examples of such. Furthermore, categories used in the mainspace not only have to adhere to the content policies just as much as lists do (e.g., a Category:Incompetent presidents of the United States would be deleted as violating WP:NPOV just as harshly as an equivalent list)—categories are in fact subject to a stricter policy than articles or lists: overcategorization. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of an article is its title. A stand alone list article takes the list itself as its subject, not the subject of the parent article. AFI lists are indeed good examples of lists which are notable, as opposed to around 95% of the lists we have on Wikipedia which simply are not. If one has to only go to Wikipedia for something (like a particular list), than it shouldn't be here as we don't publish syntheses of information, nor do we report on information which hasn't already been covered.  Them  From  Space  04:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete mainly per Themfromspace's excellent summery. It is unreferenced and fails to signify why a list of turtles contributes to human knowledge. Other than for trivial purposes, it doesn't contribute. The list also doesn't go into details of what inclusion for the turtles. Obviously a kid's imaginary friend turtle wouldn't qualify (although fictional) but if lets say a local pizza place decides to use a turtle for advertising, would it qualify for this list? As such, it is indiscriminate. Tavix (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Unsourced, trivial and indiscriminate list. I did Google and Google Scholar searches for "turtles in fiction" and "fictional turtles" and got just pretty much nothing that wasn't ultimately sourced from a Wikipedia article. Reyk  YO!  21:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with the obviously duplicated Cultural_depictions_of_turtles_and_tortoises. Come on guys, seriously now, lets stop wasting everybody's time here. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And while I'm here, I might as well used this wasted AfD moment to plug my new pet project, Mergers for discussion, which would have made this entirely unnecessary. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:IINFO. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per LinguistAtLarge. Reasons for deletion are either not policy (oh how I hate arguments based on essays...) or clearly do not apply. This is an encyclopedic entry, not just a directory of facts or random collection of information. So there is no real policy based reason to delete this article because what "contribute[s] to the state of human knowledge" is a highly subjective criterion that everyone will judge differently.  So Why  12:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Comment. It isn't an indescriminate list, and the subjects listed are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, so I see no reason to delete it. Also, I want to point out that the article has been modified significantly since it was nominated for deletion.  It has now changed from a list with little prose text, to be much more like Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises as NickPinguin says.  I personally don't think it should be merged, but think the prose text should be scaled back to maintain the difference between this article and Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises, but regardless, that isn't a discussion for AfD. Calathan (talk) 14:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; it seems that large chunks of Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises have been copied wholesale, with a few short lists at the bottom. A category would address this much better and could be linked to in the "See also" section of "Cultural depictions". -Sketchmoose (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: And there already is a Category:Fictional turtles. Clearly we have missed the tagging of all fictitious chelonians, but this grave negligence does not necessitate an article which duplicates two others. -Sketchmoose (talk) 14:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment True, this article has now been turned into a cruftified version of Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises. Duplicate articles here don't belong. I think the debate now is whether the list style should be used for this format, in which my answer is "clearly, no". Prose should always be preferred except in cases where the list itself produces something in which the prose cannot, like a direct comparison.  As I said above, the material in this list doesn't recieve any benefits from direct comparison through a list format.  The giant turtle in Aladdin has nothing to do with Squirtle from Pokemon. Thus, there is no encyclopedic value to the list and it serves as merely a directory.  Them  From  Space  14:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The list forms a good index for the topic Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises and is suitable for this per WP:CLS. The two articles might best be developed/merged together but this is a matter of normal editing, not deletion.  The title of this article is a useful search term and so should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is or should be limited to turtles who play a major role in notable fiction. If it does that, it is not indiscriminate. "Indiscriminate" is a list of every fictional turtle ever written about or alluded to in any work however non-notable--this list by contrast is highly discriminating by being limited to notable fiction.  "Listcruft" is a synonym for IDONTTHINKITSIMPORTANT, for it can be applied to any list article.  I hardly think this list is"too general or  too broad in scope" -- to me, it seems exactly focused and rather narrow.  Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists here have the particular advantage of providing some information about the fiction in which they appear, those facilitating browsing. No valid reason for deletion based on anything in Wikipedia  policy. DGG (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Colonel Warden's comments seem to clarify it well enough. Or to put it another way: AfD is not cleanup. - jc37 09:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you ever think that this was nominated because it should be deleted? Where does it say that the nominator wanted it cleaned-up? No where. Please, stop making false assumptions. Maybe if this is kept, it should be cleaned up. Tavix (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually you are making the "false assumption" that I was referring specifically to the what the nominator "wanted". Though I do find it interesting that their rationale for deletion is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay (WP:LISTCRUFT). - jc37 03:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator did not use LISTCRUFT as his rationale, instead he used WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR, which is a section of the NOT policy. People usually don't use essays as reasons for deletion, but point to them to so they don't have to draw out in the nomination of everything possible. Instead, pointing to an essay gives people a heads-up that they think the article in question meets/fails the point that the essay is driving across. Also, please show me where the nominator said he wanted clean-up. That is where I am saying you have false accusations. Tavix (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Throughout history, turtles have played a key role in some societies. Although if any of the religions on certain islands still believe the turtle is sacred, then you couldn't include them as "fictional".  Only religions no one believes in anymore, can be referred to by that.   D r e a m Focus  19:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises - there is a lot of duplicated/redundant information. As a bonus, a fictional turtle does qualify as a cultural depiction so you neatly sidestep the thorny theological question of gods becoming fictional iff nobody worships them any more. pablo hablo. 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list serves the three purposes of lists in Wikipedia: navigation, information, and development. "Indiscriminate" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion—just because a few editors feel it is "indiscriminate" does not mean it violates policy. It is not a "directory" in the Wikipedia sense; with or without the prose, it is nothing like a phone book: it is an annotated index to Wikipedia articles grouped under a useful and notable category. As such it does contribute to the state of human knowledge, by providing an organized way to access that knowledge. It does not violate the three content policies; everything in here is verifiable, neutral, and not original research. However, the redundant prose to Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises should be trimmed and briefly summarized; the focus of this should be the items listed. Merging is a reasonable possibility but it is not necessary to decide this at AfD. DHowell (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises. Much of the information is duplicated. I see little reason to have two articles on this; the topic is pretty much the same.  ♪Tempo  di Valse ♪  00:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. If someone wants to merge its content with cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises, that's fine; otherwise I see no reason to delete it, notwithstanding "cruft! indiscriminate!" arguments.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2009 (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.