Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia


 * 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, consensus is that this list does not fail any policies and should be kept. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to violate: What_Wikipedia_is_not. Every location in a notable book series, doesn't automatically make every location notable. The important locations have articles already, and are linked from the template as well. Also I want to point out: this had a prod on it, but was removed for no reason. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or on second thoughts merged with Narnia (world) - not just a notable series but regarded as one of the most notable in the genre. Did not have a huge list of different places but was rather well-circumscribed for fantasy writing, hence a significant proportion exist in popular consciousness. cheers, Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 19:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment. I concur rather with your first thoughts. Given the notability of Narnia, I would have thought this was a perfectly useful list per WP:LIST, and merging would needlessly fragment and overburden Narnia (world). --Paularblaster (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Narnia is highly notable as can be seen from the large body of secondary work about it - 1364 hits from Google Books, for example - and so merits good coverage. This format is preferred to a myriad of separate articles on these places.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given how popular the stories are, and with TV and film versions as well, this seems a perfectly legitimate spin-off from the main articles on each of the volumes - and a handy reference for anybody writing about the series. --Paularblaster (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But phone numbers are a handy reference as well. Just because it's handy doesn't mean it's encyclopedic - to my knowledge. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's hardly comparing like with like. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * comment. Some contributors to this discussion seem to think that lists need an assertion of the notability of each item they contain. The topic needs notability; the items just need relevance. Olympic coaches and competitors, for instance, should all be listed but should not all be given individual articles. Per WP:LIST and WP:CLS, lists need to present information in a structured way that takes the weight off articles, and complements categories. This list does just that. Stand-alone articles about each of these places are hardly desirable (so the category should not list all of them); incorporating the items off this list into articles about the volumes, series, or the fictional world would overburden those articles. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV etc. apply in full force, but are hardly criteria for deletion in this instance. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not every location is notable. Nor does every location have or merit an article.  Feezo (Talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Narnia world per suggestion - The list demonstrates no notability through reliable sources, and should be merged as was suggested. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Narnia (world). *** Crotalus *** 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lists are the way to go, much better than individual articles that might occur if this were deleted. RMHED (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with Narnia (world). Just because the "parent" subject (Narnia) is plenty notable, it does not follow that everything regarding that subject is notable - otherwise, the six degrees of separation would dictate that every conceivable person, place, and thing would be notable, by virtue of being associated with something else that's indisputably notable. Surely there's a Narnia-oriented Wiki for material such as this? --Badger Drink (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable by reliable sources, especially the book itself. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is verifiable A merge is fine too, but it might make more sense to keep as a seperate article.  Enough of the places on the list are independantly noted in works studying the chronicles to merit seperate articles.   Considering the number of places in total, it makes sense to have a list of them for various reasons. &mdash;siro&chi;o 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as the world of Narnia is significant enough to justify an article about places in that world. Wikitumnus (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 06:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Why are lists so misunderstood by so many Wikipedians? This is clearly as useful and valid encyclopedic glossary-style list as clearly described in WP:SAL and in WP:LIST. Read them, learn them, live them (and stop AfDing list articles! *please*)Earthdirt (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Just as a refresher, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary but it does contain glossaries as described in WP: LIST under "Types of Lists" ... "A Glossary page presents definitions for specialized terms in a subject area." Earthdirt (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Keep Per all the above comments. Harland1 (t/c) 09:22, 2 January 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.