Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Fictional fairies

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion, where it is currently listed as unresolved. It may be reviewed again in the future in the light of evolving standards and guidelines for categorization.

Category:Fictional fairies
All fairies are fictional. RickK 23:04, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * delete - I agree --[[User:Bodnotbod| bodnotbod   .....TALK Q uietly ) ]] 00:09, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash;isn't there still a difference between fairies that people once believed were real (Queen Mab?) and fairies that were presented from the start as fictional? Just as there's a difference between deities first described in a self-labelled work of fiction and those that are simply no longer believed in?  Postdlf 02:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems like something that might lead to problems, though. The only NPOV distinction I can think of would be people who were verifiably real but were considered fairies, and I can't think of any examples of that.  Merge and delete. anthony (see warning) 10:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Delete. -- Beland 04:33, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me make a point here -- in the category Category:Fictional characters by nature there are many subcategories such as Category:Fictional ghosts, Category:Fictional dragons, Category:Fictional vampires and so forth... Now *all* ghosts are fictional, all dragons are fictional and all vampires are fictional... But at this point I don't think it's really so significant to nitpick about the usage of the word "Fictional" (Moreover I think it might help show that we are not talking about articles that refer to dragons, vampires, ghosts in general, but rather to individual characters). On the other hand in the case of fairies the distinction between fictional and non-fictional (mythological) ones tends to be much more fluid as not having a religion of their own to canonically define them, tended to make their characters much more influencable from works of fiction -- Puck may be mythological, but most people nowadays remember that of Shakespeare or of Gargoyles or of Gaiman or some other version.

And then there's the other point, that the "fairy" category is sometimes very fluid, e.g. in the case of Ariel or of Puck himself (fairies or sprites?) So in short -- okay delete for "fictional fairies", replace with a "Fairy and sprite characters" Aris Katsaris 22:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I dispute the evidence above. I've seen some non-fictional dragons, and I'm not so sure about ghosts either. The only vampires I'm aware of are either bats or rabid. --ssd 02:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Disagree with deletion - we need to distinguish between "X comes from mythology and traditional folklore" and "X comes from a book/movie/TV show" (qv Category:Fictional deities). -Sean Curtin 19:14, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Keep. -- Pjacobi 18:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Then shouldn't it be Category:Fairies in fiction and Category:Fairies in mythology and folklore? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. At least keep the idea. Morgan le Fay comes from legend (and in some texts it is said that the "ignorant" people called her a goddess). Melusine is from legend. So is Alberich. So is the Tooth Fairy, in a way. But Tinkerbell and the Blue Fairy are purely fiction. That most people think of Puck in respect to Shakespeare's play is probably true. But most people also think of Hamlet or King Lear mostly in respect to Shakespeare's plays. Legends and old tales can be novelized or dramatized and folk of legend, both natural and supernatural, can be novelized or dramatized. But I don't like the word fairy. It is out of style and especially doesn't work well for similar supernatural entities outside of European culture, supernatural beings who are not quite the same as gods (though there is often overlap) and who are generally thought of in a mass. Unfortunately we don't have a good English word. Sprite is too fay, too twee. Daemones might do, referring to various mysterious women who appear at birth to bless and curse, to Rumpelstiltskin, to the little people of some native American legends, to the Gandharvas, Yakshas and Apsaras of India, to the satyrs and nymphs of Greece, to Valkyries who choose mortal lovers or are forced to take one when their swan garments are stolen, and to all the various giants and boggles and goblins and long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night. But are the lesser Tuatha D Danaan of Irish legend and folklore to be counted as gods or daemones? The Greek Circe is called a goddess, but she is in fact what medieval romances would call a Fay. Classification of supernatural entities is very difficult, especially as in many tales part of the point is that they are mysterious entities, are just there. The little man met in the forest is not explained. But one does want to distinguish beings known from folklore and older legend (whether or not also used in fiction) from beings known to be created for fiction. There are edge cases. I don't believe use of the name Titania as a fairy name predates Shakespeare, but Titania obviously is the traditional fairy queen more normally called Mab in Elizabethan literature. But the "King of the Golden River" is a fictonal creation as is the goblin in Davy and the Goblin. The fairies in Lewis Carrol's Bruno and Sylvie are certainly fictional. Many of those who appear in Neil Gaiman's Sandman series are not in origin fictional, any more than are Shakespere or Caliph Haroun Al Rashid or the god Loki, if by fictional we mean invented for literary fiction. Jallan 18:18, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)