Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of time travel works of 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 Keep as it's a White Christmas. Andrew D. (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC).

List of time travel works of fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per Wikipedia is not a list The books mentioned in this list already have Wikipedia articles for them, so it's also redundant.Having the list in place adds no value to the articles. Therefore I move that the list (not the articles mentioned within the list) be deleted  Kosh Vorlon   15:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)  Kosh Vorlon   15:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

List can be created []. As I said, this is far too large a range of fiction to not have a list that people can go to if they want to know what is out there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep  If only this was the only list here. Actually I find this useful, as it enabled me to look up this type of fiction, and a full bibliography would not be appropriate for the main article. Can you link to the WP:NOTLIST policy please?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, why is this list not a list? It's great that everything in this list has an article on it -- that indicates that this list meets our notability guidelines for lists. I don't I think see a valid deletion rationale here. It seems to be a valid compliment to the main article and category for time travel fiction. Keep.
 * Keep Wikipedia has plenty of list articles. This one meets all the requirements for one.  Nominator needs to learn the rules before wasting time with pointless nomination.  Kindly withdraw your nomination so this can be closed.   D r e a m Focus  16:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment , comment on content not contributors, first of all.  I've been a Wikipedian for 9 years and am well aquanited with the rules, did you not read WP:NOTDIR ?  This isn't an article, it's a list pretending to be an article, it's redundant, adds no value or greater understanding to the articles linked to it, and because Wikipedia is not a directory, we have three reasons to remove this list. Kindly strike your  comments.  Kosh Vorlon '''  17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In all that time, you never saw a list article before? Use the Search button to look for "list of" and it says "Results 1 - 20 of 1,515,068".  So plenty of list articles just like this one you can easily find.  Everyone here disagrees with you on this issue, so kindly listen to them, and don't try this again.   D r e a m Focus  17:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. This nomination is not supported by policy. There's no such guideline as "NOTLIST"; there actually is a page called WP:NOTLIST but it's a "humor" page.  WP:NOTDIR, on the other hand, does exist but is not concerned with lists of notable articles like this one.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Please keep it polite.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC) please comment on content, not contributor. Also please re-read my rationale, WP:NOTDIR is only ONE of Three reasons I'm proposing deletion. Kosh Vorlon ''' 20:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, meritless nomination clearly unsupported by any relevant guideline or policy. And the nominator should know better: he's been trying this "NOTLIST" nonsense for many, many years now (see, e.g., Articles for deletion/List of hooligan firms, Articles for deletion/List of assassinated people (2nd nomination)), and he linked to a policy section that starts with "Wikipedia encompasses many lists..." This can only be trolling or an unfixable competence issue. Suggest ANI to ban from future AFD nominations of any list-related articles, if not to simply block for disruption. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're right. I had no idea. "Wikipedia is not a list," was one of the 'rationales,' if you can call it that. Amazing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I'm gonna comment on your cluelessness when it comes to list nominations at Afd. Sorry. And you needn't ping me. I'm watching this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this is the exact kind of list that we do keep in Wikipedia, on a well-defined topic, with sourcing and organization. I'm not sure what the issue is here that merits deletion. WP:NOTDIR is not an indictment against list articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, though some clean-up and possible review is needed. I have no problems with the list if it's limited to blue-links and works featuring time-travel as a primary element, but it might be worth considering whether other selection criteria are appropriate, such as third-party sourcing for the list entries. DonIago (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous voters and because no proper argument for deletion was given. --Fixuture (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep List with obvious purpose, adding value a category can't (as well as including works that are notable enough for a list but not for their own articles). /Julle (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Good point about books not notable enough for their own article, changed vote to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Not seeing a good reason, policy or otherwise, for removing this. Artw (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2016 (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.