Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things


 * 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. Sr13 00:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Lists of fictional things

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:NOT - This has got to be the apex of "indiscriminate information". Personal disdain for "list of" articles aside, this one has no hope of ever being complete or useful. It appears to be mostly a "list of list of articles", but I don't see any utility in having an article with such an unimaginable scope. Many, many editors have noted on the talk page the lunacy of this article (though I believe this is the first nomination for deletion). We are an encyclopedia, not a place to list everything that's ever been (or, most especially, a list of things that have never been!). Blaxthos 11:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Addendum - should we note this on WP:BJAODN ? /Blaxthos 16:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G1 and warn the author. Fictionality of characters or events in films or books is easy to establish by legal disclaimers, but things are practically uncheckable with regard to "fictionality". -- Futurano 12:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable. Like Blaxthos, I can't stand listcruft but this takes the cake! It should be included in the BJAODN Hall of Fame. I think it's unlikely any piece of listcruft will ever top this unless it's a List of everything. --Targeman 12:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask and Ye Shall Receive - ZEROpumpkins 12:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't beieve it either While sceptic to the indiscriminate deletion of lists, this is the very reason we have the problem.--Victor falk 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can't see any merits in this. --Malcolmxl5 14:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Ach du lieber! This article's been around since 2004?  How'd it last that long?  Listcruft, redundant, unmaintainable. Blueboy96 14:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2004?! Holy Γʊçж1ʌζ §#!+ !!! O.o --Targeman 15:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this three years ago. Ugh, how did this slip through the cracks for so long? Completely ridiculous. - RPIRED 15:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per everyone above. Fictional things?!? How more vague can you get?! Kill it per WP:NOT and WP:NOT -- maybe even an A3 (consists of only links elsewhere). Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete But if it's been in the system three years, it seems a little inappropriate to warn the author. Pure chutzpah and effort almost make me want to vote keep. But there's no WP:GRAVITAS category. Mystery Meat 16:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, with prejudice. This is a list that can conceivably have anything added to it.  My God, make this list go away! -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 17:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Ok, so how many of the people arguing for deletion have actually looked at this list? This is not a list of fictional things, but an organizational page linking to other existing lists and categories.  You may question whether or not any of those things merit articles on their own, or the desirability of trying to use this as an index to existing pages, but this is not what it seems to be that people are objecting to.  There is no way this is nonsense, and I strongly suggest folks who are arguing for its deletion carefully consider what this list is about.  It's organizational in nature, not content-based.  Nonsense is for other things entirely.  This is at most a bad idea because of the difficulty of doing it right.  And warning the author?  It's appropriate warn for vandalism and POVness.  Also for disruptive behavior.  Warning here would imply there was something harmful with this page.  Thank you, but no, let's not admonish folks when if anything, the only action warranted is a polite expression of concern over scope.  Save your warnings for things that actively hurt Wikipedia.  Not to mention the problem with warning the dozens of editors who have contributed to this page.  I doubt User:Litefantastic cares anyway, having decided to leave Wikipedia.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:49, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete copy of Category:Lists of fictional things Corpx 18:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to contributors to this AFD. Most of the comments posted here seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason to delete an article. Comments like “unbelievable”, “ugh”, “ridiculous”, and “Holy Γʊçж1ʌζ §#!+ !!!” are not legitimate reasons for deletion of an article. Please provide basis for your opinions based on Wikipedia policy. Thank you. &#9679;DanMS • Talk 20:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, WP:NOT. The scope of this article is unimaginably huge and will never be satisfied. I have a book which attempts to categorize all possible fields of science, and it's an 800-page monster. The idea that it's possible to list all fictitious things that have ever existed (BTW, are the fictitious human beings listed "things" as well?) is preposterous, even if it's just a list of lists. And if we accept a list of lists, we'll have to accept a List of all lists that list lists. And it's pretty amazing that this has eluded editors for 3 years. --Targeman 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment "The idea that it's possible to list all fictitious things that have ever existed " reflects a misunderstanding of this list. It isn't that.  It's an index to certain lists on Wikipedia.  The two are not the same.  I suggest you strike your comment and replace it with one that indicates an understanding of the actual purpose of this page.   FrozenPurpleCube 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fear not for my understanding. I know what the intent of this article is, but I fail to see its usefulness; it's already an oversized link index to only marginally interconnected subjects. Do you really imagine that someone reading about unicorns will think 'Hey, while I'm at it, I'll check out some fictional restaurants because they're fiction, too? Imagine an article like Lists of blue things where you can find links to Smurfs, the sky, cornflower and blueprints. A useful navigation tool? --Targeman 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, I do imagine that a person seeking to examine the lists of fictional things on Wikipedia might find it helpful to have a single list of pages to examine in order to see what's there or not. I know I certainly find such indexes helpful when I'm browsing subjects.  Your example is irrelevant.  There aren't any lists of anything by color as far as I know, thus no need to index them.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto Targeman. Perhaps the recoil reaction to this article is based more on an incredibly blatant example of WP:NOT that has existed for a Wiki-eon than anything else. That doesn't make my reaction or anyone else's reaction WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How many times are we supposed to repeat "WP:NOT," especially in a WP:SNOW situation? - RPIRED 20:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to repeat it at all. AFD is not a question of by the numbers, but rather by the strength of the arguments involved.  As far as it goes, the vast majority of the positions represented here in this discussion aren't very strong, but rather uncivil or even frivolous.  It doesn't make for a stronger case when you say things like "I can't stand listcruft but this takes the cake! It should be included in the BJAODN Hall of Fame." or "this three years ago. Ugh, how did this slip through the cracks for so long? Completely ridiculous." .  All that tells me is you're making an emotional reaction, instead of evaluating the article on its own merits, and considering it appropriately.  Examples of reasonable arguments would be something like what Corpx said.  That's reasonable.  But as a navigational tool, it's hardly appropriate to call this list ridiculous.  So, maybe you should just strike your earlier comments?  FrozenPurpleCube 22:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's a case to be made for deleting the article as redundant to a category, but it is not a violation of WP:NOT. It's not an indiscriminate collection of information; it's an internal navigation guide within Wikipedia.  Many people seem to assume that it contains just random "fictional things", which admittedly the name seems to suggest.  But a look at the actual article indicates something quite different. Given that Wikipedia is so large, the production of navigation aids that relate similar articles and topics is to be commended.RandomCritic 21:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per the nom and I would say delete ASAPJForget 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Categorize. It's true that it is a list of lists, but I think it'd be possible to categorize this stuff as long as we don't allow things made up in school one day and try to avoid original research.  Useight 00:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the title must be bad, because it seems to have been misread by some of the early comments as if this were a list of things.. its not. It's a perfectly valid organizational article giving a list of wikipedia articles in a more organized way than a category would. I see no OR whatsoever. There's no research, just the assemblage of the appropriate WP articles. DGG (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and Strong delete There is no accusation of OR. There is accusation of this, this and this, though. I agree with the deletion sentiment, seeing as this is a very clear example of what does not belong on Wikipedia, it is an unnecessary collection of vaguely related items (how about 'Lists of non-fictional things'? There wouldn't even be a debate!) and has no purpose that categories can not fill much better. Lists are sprawling and quickly outdated -- categories are made for the purpose of archiving and indexing fictional things, amongst others. --Joffeloff 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Duplicates a category and "fictional things" is possibly the best example of too broad a criteria that I have encountered in 3 years of editing. 23skidoo 01:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I get the feeling that Blaxthos actually finds this list useful in making other nominations for today. Ironic that you want to delete it, since it appears to have been of help.  Hard to vote for keep, since I think that there's a category that lists articles of fictional "things".  Mandsford 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please address the issue raised, and not the actions of the nominator. FTR I'll gladly nominate any list I find that doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion (especially of this caliber).  So are we to take that as a delete, then?  /Blaxthos 04:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, gladly... Mandsford 23:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, better organized than the category. An incredible array of retarded excuses to delete this have been offered, maybe people should try actually looking at this thing before they give a reason. Kappa 04:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Poster child for WP:NOT. Glad to see that Kappa is here to keep all us retarded excuse-mongerers honest. Eusebeus 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you retards actually made some kind of effort to engage with the issues. Kappa 16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if you could argue our points rather than simply calling us retards for arguing our points. If your only defense against our arguments is to call us retards, I'd say that argument is pretty strong. --Joffeloff 16:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't regard "better organized than the category" as a defense against "and has no purpose that categories can not fill much better"? Would you like me to go into more detail? Kappa 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be called a retard by Kappa is an honour of sorts. It means we are doing something right. Eusebeus 17:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, let's be civil! Corpx 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember when Kappa used to be civil back when I was constantly on AfD a couple of years ago. We always disagreed, but he always stuck to arguements based on his interpretation of policy and always refused to be drawn in by the baiting of others. I am saddend to see that a member of the community who used to have such integrity has changed in this manner. Indrian 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that there's no actual incentive for people like Eusebeus to engage in discussion when they can always rely more unreasoned votes to show up and win by sheer force of numbers. Kappa 23:00, 2 August 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.