Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia (2nd nomination)


 * 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 delete. The broad consensus about Wikipedia's treatment of in-universe plot elements from fiction has changed signficantly since the last AfD in 2007, and the majority of participants here seem to view this list as excessive. Only a minority of the elements are blue-linked - and a few of those themselves may not survive AfD - and most participants seem to feel that the necessary other elements are covered sufficiently at Narnia (world). While a lack of secondary-sourced coverage doesn't always preclude a well-maintained list, the lack of rational inclusion criteria here leads to a large number of remarkably minor locations about which nothing much can be written in an encyclopedic way. Consensus therefore seems to be that this article no longer fulfils our inclusion criteria per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTPLOT. ~ mazca  talk 16:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails WP:LISTN, and it is not a justified content split. Narnia (world) is completely sufficient to discuss the fictional world and its important locales. There is no need to list every single trivial location in the series. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is a redundant content fork of . &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 14:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an uneeded content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the second attempt to delete this article and the overwhelming majority of "keep" votes recorded then are worth noting before a second decision is made. As it stands the Narnia (world) article has only brief and superficial coverage of locales, although there might be a case for merger. The List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia presently draws an average of 63 daily views indicating a significant degree of interest in an important aspect of a very popular children's fiction series; the appeal of which is largely based on the carefully constructed and described geography of another world. I am just concerned that the arbitary deletion of a long established article for no very convincing reason would disappoint many of the younger readers that we want to attract to Wikipedia. Buistr (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The previous AfD was in 2007, so it's pretty much 100% irrelevant to the Wikipedia of today. The treatment of fiction has radically changed in the last decade. As for those looking for such content, they can go to Fandom or another fan wiki. There's really no encyclopedic benefit to a two sentence laundry list of fictional items. Redirecting there provides little context that could just as easily explained in prose in the linking-article. It's a waste of time to send the user there. Those looking for more in-depth coverage will be disappointed regardless. Wikipedia has no duty to cover every aspect of a fictional world, and the fact that the main world of Narnia is most certainly worthy of an article (though renaming it to broaden the topic might be useful) means encyclopedic content on the world will remain regardless. TTN (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - This is a whole lot of in-universe plot summary that is either largely unsourced or relying on primary sources. The actually important locations that do not have independent articles are already covered at Narnia (world).  The vast bulk of the rest of these entries are a bizarre mixture of very minor locations, locations that never actually appeared in the books but were "mentioned" by a character, and things that are not locations at all.  While there are sources that do talk about the major locations in the series, they are, again, already covered elsewhere, and there are no sources that would allow this huge amount of cruft to pass WP:LISTN.  Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Most of the blue links have their own articles and there is enough of them to justify the list article. These blue links are not listed in the other article.   D r e a m Focus  01:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually looked into that, and there are only 15 blue links that actually link to independent articles (several of them actually link to the same article), and three of those link to the real life cities of Cambridge, Finchley, and London. And, of the 12 remaining, I only see a couple that would likely be found independently notable, as most of those are minor locations sourced only to the Narnia books.  Additionally, ten of those twelve are discussed/mentioned in the main Narnia (world) article, with appropriate links to their own articles.  If you pruned the list down to only the 12 legitimate blue links, instead of the over 90 entries of cruft, there is really nothing there that would justify a list split from the parent article, when nearly all of the information and links are already included there.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have been on the fence with this one, as I usually am regarding lists. However I note that Narnia Fandom Wiki has such a list, and their list links to more information on their wiki. I think that is the appropriate wiki project for this information, and the discussion above indicates that any notable information in the list is already preserved elsewhere on Wikipedia. This list is not adding to the freedom of knowledge, and Wikipedia's higher search rankings actually means that the better information on the fandom site lacks visibility. I looked at the 2007 arguments for retention and see that none of them really concerned the notability of the information per WP:GNG, because criteria were different then. I cannot see how this meets GNG, and I actually think interested readers would be better served if it were gone. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , For what it's worth, WP:GNG doesn't apply to lists, if that helps you with your argument as I see you're "on the fence." See my !vote and own argument below. Doug Mehus T · C  02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Rorshacma's analysis. A list of overwhelmingly nonnotable fictional locations, Narnia (world) already covers almost all notable locations. – sgeureka t•c 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Our first link goes to an article that has been posted as too in-universe for 11 years. So not all the way back to the last discussion on this matter. I really do not see an encyclopedic value to having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the blue linked articles are not notable, then send them to AFD or turn them into redirects. The list article is useful for navigation, and this is a valid subject if there are a lot of articles in this subject which it links to.   D r e a m Focus  18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fancruft that does not merit a separate list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete primary-sourced or un-sourced plot minutiae. ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - they have different but overlapping content that would make the main Narnia world article better. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per . There's some overlapping coverage, but it's not a complete duplicate content fork, so that portion of the "keep" arguments is thus invalidated. As well, given the age of this alphabetical list, which is arguably the better of the two, likely precludes us from outright deleting per WP:ATT. The merge should occur at the talk page of the subject list; we shouldn't dictate where or how to merge. Sure, this list needs some improvement to meet WP:LISTN, but it's not a complete fail, either. As well, we have to remember "keep" and "merge" are essentially variants of each other; thus, those who !voted "keep" despite this being not a vote will likely be amenable to a merge in some fashion. That is, they just oppose deletion (for different, some incorrect, reasons). Doug Mehus T · C  02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Almost entirely unsourced (therefore also do not merge), fails WP:NOTPLOT.  Sandstein   18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , True, to a certain extent, in that there are no in-line citations/footnotes, but I do note is a provided bibliography to the print text from reliable sources where one might logically speculate that's where the sourcing comes from. The prose is well written, so I'm hesitant to endorse deletion. Could we endorse soft delete so WP:REFUND to one's userspace can apply, in order to fill in and add needed footnotes? Doug Mehus T · C  19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , plot summary at this level of detail is in my view not worth keeping in any form, no matter how well written or potentially sourceable. It is simply out of our project scope per WP:NOTPLOT, just as much as other forms of WP:NOT content such as essays or original research. The place for such content is fan wikis or other specialized websites.  Sandstein   19:44, 6 February 2020 (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.