Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shapeshifters in myth and fiction


 * 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 speedy kept, due to nom being made by a disruptive user. Any user with an objection to the article may recreate an AFD at any time, however, I ask that this AfD is not taken into consideration in the future. Will (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

List of shapeshifters in myth and fiction

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't believe people devote entire articles to this. This is just a bunch of long-accumulated cruft (as in, worthless, do-nothing junk that accrues in places nobody looks at). Wikipedia is neither an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a trivia collection. Anyone looking to learn about shapeshifters in myth is going to be sadly disappointed looking at this article (assuming they could get through the thousands of bytes of "This guy changes form in this comic book"). JohnEMcClure 21:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of shapeshifters in mythology, and then delete the non-mythological entries after tagging them with Category:Fictional shapeshifters. —Quasirandom 21:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Or maybe that should be List of shapeshifters in myth and folklore, since the main article shapeshifting doesn't seem to make the distinction. —Quasirandom 23:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like it is not a valid reason to delete. Colonel Warden 21:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom 21:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination is badly put, but even taking the nomination generously, it were nominated as being an indiscriminate or indistinct list, that's just not true. Fictional shape shifters (what other kind is there?) is a notable, interesting subject and I'm sure there are plenty of articles / sources about the subject broadly.  However, it would make more sense to divide this up among myth/religion/superstition, television and film, and literary works.  Consider renaming for that reason.  Wikidemo 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as not entirely curft, but badly needs better cites than internal links. Stubify? Bearian&#39;sBooties 01:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above three editors and possibly snowball keep too. Many of us do indeed find this kind of material encyclolpedic and especially with Halloween right around the corner our readers will be interested in learning more about this particular topic.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as is, and divide the article when there is more content. .This sort of material is encyclopedic, and the nomination amounts merely to  IDONTLIKEIT. (not that ITINTERESTSME is much better as an argument).  Since it can be limited to those with WP articles for the works or myths or characters, it is not indiscriminate. indiscriminate would be listing at random without concern for importance, or listing everything possible. Neither is the case here. There is not the least policy against articles on this sort of content, and no reason to call in trivia. the best part of wikipedia is the popular culture material, and the use of themes in notable works is an  integral part. Lists are not necessarily expected to give complete information, but to link to the articles which justify them.  Any inappropriate material is just a question for editing. DGG (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since this nomination was made by a now-banned sockpuppet --Steven J. Anderson 10:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - That it's a sockpuppet, there's now no doubt of. That it's a sockpuppet of a banned user, however, seems to be somewhat in question.  Into The Fray   T / C  10:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is Eyrian, who is still an administrator here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are numerous books on vampires/werewolves/horror movies et. Even by stricter standards of listcruft there is notable commentary, synthesis and essays on the subject. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 October 2007 (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.