Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skier Dude (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 15 January 2007 (→Lists: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nickelodeon actors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to lists. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Lists|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to lists. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch


Lists

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nickelodeon actors

List of Nickelodeon actors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Pure indiscriminate listcruft. Creating a channel's entire list of actors is almost unlimited and unmaintainable. Would be better as a category. -- Wikipedical 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-Zero Party

F-Zero_Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (View AfD)

The article F-Zero Party has been an orphan since its creation two edits ago, and doesn't seem to make sense to me. My guess is that it is a list of possible characters in the game F-Zero GX, but if so should be merged into that article or at least wikified. V-Man737 02:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 Keep. Nishkid64 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways

List of unused highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Use of this term was apparently coined by a couple of editors for the purpose of use in Wikipedia, the definition of a neologism. This article was originally kept (as Ghost ramp) in an AfD; a second AfD was improperly closed by a non-admin who proposed its deletion when he moved it to the current name. A move back to "ghost ramp" would not be appropriate since the list has expanded well past its original meaning and contains abandoned road structures (and some road structures never built) that are not ghost/stub ramps. B.Wind 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this separate from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unused highway? --NE2 04:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have not had as much experience at opening AfDs as other editors.B.Wind 04:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

NOTE: A newer version of this debate is present at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga (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 keep, at least for now. Those in favor of deletion are correct that this is in need of major cleanup, at a minimum. However, a significant number of people want to give interested editors some time to work on it, especially since at least one has articulated a tentative plan. So let's try that first. — TKD::Talk 17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms in Xenosaga

List of terms in Xenosaga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete Lengthy and unsourced glossary type article on a fictional topic, but the vast amount of detail which constitutes most of this article looks like fanfic, and I cannot find any reliable sources. If verifiable, reliable sources cannot be supplied for this, it should be deleted as per WP:V. In addition, This article suffers under notability, it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective, with nothing at all in the world of out-of-universe, real-world citation. Where's the cultural relevance for a general readers encylopedia? Larry laptop 10:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Let me just run down a few things. First off, the reliable sources: the game is a reliable source. More specifically, it's the primary source, and as such is perfectly suitable for matters of WP:RS and WP:V, but not WP:N. Instead, notability is in this case asserted by the "parent" article which the list was (presumably) split off from: Xenosaga. From WP:FICT: "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice. (emphasis mine) The rest of the nominator's objections warrant a cleanup, not a deletion. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept some of your points but if we followed what you said to your logical conclusion "list of colour of booties that Link wore" would be fine because notability would be expressed by the parent article of "the legend of Zelda" would be there and we'd have the primary source of the game to draw upon. --Larry laptop 11:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because if that information were included in the article it would be removed as "tangential" or "irrelevant" information. Notability of list information is established by its notability if it were included in the main article, irrespective of the effect it would have on article flow/size/etc. in that hypothetical. Each of the elements (as far as I can tell) in this list is about a specific plot point, character, or otherwise significant thing within the Xenosaga fiction. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 11:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my lord! :-) (is this going to be the first afd that gets increasingly good-humoured and warm as it goes on?) --Larry laptop 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ω ID is Ω Universitas in ID Mode. When in ID Mode the craft changes color from blue to red and projects out bright teal wings of energy similar to KOS-MOS' Third Armament. Ω ID is remarkably similar in appearance and purpose to Xenogears' Weltall -ID-, the powerful and destructive "alter-ego" of the game's central Gear, Weltall. It is accessible only near the end of the game after Citrine is defeated aboard the Durandal. She drops a key to the Weapons Development Area of the CAT Facility on Fifth Jerusalem, where the fight between KOS-MOS and Ω Res Novae was held. Revisiting the facility through the EVS, a player can enter the sealed-off section and fight both Ω Universitas and Ω ID.".

I can tell that the above section is a game guide hint, and that's about it.

Wikipedia is not a game guide site/fan site. There are plenty of other sites for that kind of thing. I'm very skeptical about the Zelda/Link items list too, though at least that has the decency not to stay in-universe and also not to allow excessive detail on each item Bwithh 13:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've said it before and I'll say it again: objections concerning writing style (such as in-universe perspective) or portions of the article warrant a cleanup tag, not deletion. Basically, these are fixable problems. None of the issues you have raised are concerning the article's subject as a whole. (Except for "cruft", which isn't an argument so much as a way of saying "I don't like it.") -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fancruft argument is not an extension of WP:ILIKEIT, its an extension of WP:NOT. Even leaving that issue aside, the entire article needs massive cleanup and proper referencing, following WP:NOR, WP:FICT and WP:WAF. The guideline in WP:FICT that minor characters should be merged into one list should not be used as a loophole excuse to allow large unwieldy articles which are amassed collections of rambling no-context plot points. If the article was completely revamped according to the guidelines and standards, it would look nothing like how it does now. If you want to go ahead and totally stubify/rework the article, I'd be happy to reconsider my position. Bwithh 15:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is properly referenced, or rather has a very minimal threshold for referencing with regards to verifiability, as most (if not all) of the information is implicitly (or in some cases explicity) sourced to the primary source, i.e. the game(s) each section subject appears in. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my plans to rework the Xenosaga articles in the future to decrease the amount of fan masturbation (of which I was guilty of when I first came here nearly two years ago). Let it stay until the plans are set in motion, so that we don't lose the edit history. As I point out on my userpage, don't rush to AfD articles if someone is planning on revamping the article(s) in question (as I stated on the CVG talkpage a day before the AfD was started). I'm not going to pull an all-nighter to work on these articles just because one is on AfD, either; I'll work on them, all right, but it'll have to be when I have the time to do it. If, two months from now, the articles are in the same state, I probably can't find the time to do it and therefore a deletion may be best. But let's be patient here. — Deckiller 16:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a dig at you - but I've lost count of the amount of times that people have said "honest guv", I'll clean it up in the future. Once the AFD is over, nothing happens. --Larry laptop 16:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem; AfD is being done more and more incorrectly as of late. AfD should always be a last resort, not a wakeup call; I find it best to let users know that these kinds of articles are unacceptable on an encyclopedia, and then give them ample time to consider a plan and make a major turnaround (like the Final Fantasy pages). Unfortunately, I have been unable to realize my full plans for the Xenosaga pages because of other pressing matters (finsihing what I began at the Final Fantasy wikiproject, copyediting, reviving the star wars project and continuing star wars cleanup, working on an FA, and so on). Either way, the AfD has been launched, and all that is moot because editors are now going to be forced.
Another issue I've had for a while is the use of the term "gameguide". A gameguide is a walkthrough, describing how to do things in a game. This article describes plot elements from the series' storyline, for the most part. Therefore, it's not a gameguide, it's a violation of the "plot summary" clause in WP:NOT. Sourcing is not an issue, because the game provides both plot databases and even real-life influences! The article can easily be sourced with cites from the database (the game database is actually out of universe for the most part, making it reliable), and so on....IF the article were to stay in list form, which is pathetic because we don't need an inch by inch summary of every little element of Xenosaga. So, while the article has potential to remain in its current state with some cites and rewriting, that is not the idea.
The idea is to take all these organizations, terms, and locations, and merge it into one article describing the plot, another describing the technological aspects and their influences (japanese mecha, names deriving from myth, etc), and maybe a character list. However, with Xenosaga (which features more than 30 hours of cutscenes on the whole - that's more than 12 movies right there), such a heaping amount of information requires time to sort through what is important, what's not important, influences, and what is significant enough to note; not to mention finding the correct cites to avoid original interpretation, and keeping everything contained and succinct. This takes time, which a 5-day AfD doesn't provide.
However, just deleting this article is not a wise move, because some of this information may be kept (or at least the ideas), and edit histories are very important to me. Which is why I suggested keep and add numerous cleanup tags to designate that this article needs significant overhaul, compression, and merge into a more complete out of universe page - not simply delete and scare people off. Let editors realize what they're doing is wrong, and let them help fix it so that I'm not tackling yet another project alone. — Deckiller 16:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the guidelines at the gaming project says : A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture. Isn't what you described just that? --Larry laptop 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's an explanation of the game's concepts for the non-player. Anyone who was actually in the process of playing the game would find the list of minimal benefit because they would already understand them. (Unless you have a shoddy memory or whatever, of course.) --tjstrf talk 00:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And a non-player would be interested in It is the form of Abel's consciousness in the "Imaginary Number Domain" while manifested into the "Real Number Domain" (similar to the Testaments). The Real Number Domain and the Imaginary Number Domain are the two planes of existence interwoven with each other in the Xenosaga Universe. The Real Number Domain is the plane of existence consisting of physical being and flesh (Material realm - All that we hear, see, smell, touch and taste) while the Imaginary Number Domain consists of consciousness, (Spiritual realm - emotions and heart etc). As the Ark is from the Imaginary Domain, it does not exist physically. Abel's Ark is the form of Abel's consciousness while Abel is the form of U-Do's physical being. They are referred to as "U-Do's eyes" because U-Do exists outside of the universe (in what's referred to as the "Higher Domain"). Abel's Ark and Abel are the way those within our universe (The "Lower Domain") perceive U-DO's observation. I see.... --Larry laptop 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would it help me beat the game? It's not a game guide, it would never appear in a manual or FAQ because it has nothing to do with gameplay at all. The reason it exists is because the Xenosaga universe needs explained if you're going to be able to understand any of the other information about the game. Remember, comprehensiveness requires enough plot summary for the storyline to make sense to the reader. Complicated plots need a lot of plot summary to be comprehensible. --tjstrf talk 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I mention anything connected to "help me beat the game"? in my comment? Besiding being rude, it's dishonest to answer comments with strawmen. --Larry laptop 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Game guide == guide to playing the game. This doesn't tell me how to play the game. There's no strawman there. Take a look at Game guide. It's a redirect to Strategy guide, which gives a list of commonly occurring contents of game guides. None of them match with this article at all. --tjstrf talk 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. How is this 'list of video game terms' not a video game guide? It is completely in-(Xenosaga)universe POV (Wikipedia is supposed to have a reality POV). Willing to reconsider if a secondary source establishing notability of terms with out-of-universe writing can be presented. --maclean 01:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the plus side, there are no verifiability or sourcing problems, and if the text is accurate to the game it's automatically neutral because fictional universes are generally objective. --tjstrf talk 07:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Nishkid64 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable moustaches in art and fiction

List of notable moustaches in art and fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - Stachecruft. Completely unencyclopedic. Otto4711 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 move to project space. — Matt Crypto 07:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cryptography topics

List of cryptography topics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

There's categorys for these, we don't need manual sorting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptosuckie (talk • contribs)

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.
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 Keep TSO1D 18:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional companies

Delete - another indiscriminate, unmaintainable list. Otto4711 10:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • What's indiscriminate about it is that almost every book, TV episode, film, comic book, etc. has at least one fictional company in it. If every such example of a fictional company were added to this list, the article would have tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of entries. There is no way that such a list can be useful or encyclopedic. Take a show like Bewitched as just one example, that takes place partly within the context of an advertising agency. Would Wikipedia become more useful if someone added every single client that Darrin ever wrote copy for to this list article? Otto4711 19:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come now. You should know better than that. WP:NOT#IINFO is not limited to just those things. A list of all the people in the US who own a cat doesn't fall under any of those guidelines, are you suggesting that such an article would not correctly be removed under the policy? Otto4711 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this argument is that you haven't yet connected this article and the one about cats. People can recgonzie the problem with an article about every cat owner. But that doesn't mean we don't have list of cat breeds or other such lists. The real problem is, there is no policy argument that supports your position, and I just don't see a good articulation of why this list is bad. Sure, it's hard to maintain, it's potentially vast...so is Wikipedia. This list isn't any more impossible to manage than Wikipedia itself. Even if it reached the point where it was far too long, it could be broken up into "list of fictional X from American Media" or "list of fictional X from 20th Century Media" or whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 01:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unencyclopedic" and "unmaintainable" and "indiscriminate collection of information" are more than sufficient justification for deleting this article. It does not benefit Wikipedia to have an article consisting of nothing but the names of fictional companies that appeared in some piece of fiction or another. Is there any significance to the vast majority of the named businesses, even within the works themselves? Hard to say, because vast numbers of them offer no assertion of their notability or indeed any indication of what role they play in the narrative from which they are drawn. There is no value to Wikipedia in having a list to include business names that appear on billboards in video games and otherwise play no role in the game. There is no value in a list that gathers the names of, say, fictional groceries where the hero of the story buys his toilet paper. To which your answer undoubtedly will be that such entries should be excised. Which then brings up the inevitable maintainability issues, not to mention POV issues. If you don't like WP:NOT then how about WP:FICT? If this were a list of characters rather than a list of businesses there would be no question that the article should be deleted. Otto4711 01:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be only your opinion that it's not encyclopedic. However, I disagree. These companies themselves may be the subject of articles themselves, or they may not, but that they can, demonstrates to me that there is potential encyclopedic value to them. This content is real, and if any of it in particular doesn't belong, remove that. And yes, the criteria for this list is very important, and as far as your concerns go, clean-up is an option instead of deletion. I'd say establishing some good criteria would fix your concerns just fine. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. Leave it to someone else to maintain. And I would not agree that there would be no question that these lists would be deleted or not. Your past experience with nominating members of various professions should demonstrate to you that there are questions to it, and valid concerns. So I'm not sure why you think it would be automatically done. While you may think there's no question of deleting these lists, obviously other people do. So perhaps you need to work on either improving your argument, or recognizing where it's not applicable? FrozenPurpleCube 02:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as nominating lists of professions, it remains my opinion that many of the keep opinons were in respnse to procedural concerns rather than the quality of the articles themselves. But that's neither here nor there in regards this discussion. If you can demonstrate in any convincing way that an encyclopedic article can be written about, oh, just picking a few at random, Big Bud Dean Construction from Heathers or Monumental Pictures from Singin' in the Rain or Ace Tomato Company from Spies Like Us then I will cheerfully concede your point. Otto4711 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to convince you of any of those companies, because I don't believe that they should have an article, though admittedly, I don't know much about any of them, so I really would refrain from expressing anything about them. Of the three entries you named, I only know I've seen one, and that was years ago. I wouldn't even know if they really were in the material. Personal ignorance therefore trumps argument. If you're concerned about those entries, bring it up to the people who added them. Besides, there is no requirement than a list be composed solely of entries with articles. Or even primarily. Still, even if they were, that the material they appeared in has a Wikipedia article is enough for me. And I think the general consensus is that almost any non-self published fictional work is going to be kept. Therefore, I believe that the standard you've created is a false one, and unsupported by Wikipedia practice. If you want me to agree to it, you're going to have to convince me of it first. And as far as the fictional professions go, while some opinions were on that reasons, many others were for actual ones. You should go back and look at them. There are real arguments there, not just procedurally kept ones. FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's precisely my point, and the point of WP:FICT and WP:NOT. That something has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that every aspect of it should be noted somewhere on Wikipedia. In tonight's episode of Desperate Housewives, Lynette mentioned two companies in single lines of dialog that she wrote ad campaigns for. These companies have never been mentioned before, it's highly unlikely that they'll ever be mentioned again, and we know absolutely nothing about them other than one of them once ran a commercial involving fleas dancing the tango. By your standard, those two companies which mean absolutely nothing in the grander scheme of the work of fiction should be included in the list article. If the criteria for the list are such that these two companies warrant inclusion, then the list is indiscriminate and unencyclopedic. Otto4711 04:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But nobody is asking for every aspect of everything. I do not watch Desperate Housewives, so I don't even know if the companies Lynette mentioned were real or not, or whether or not they would be mentioned in a biography about her, or in the episode of the show. The real problem is, your arguments are worth altering the criteria of the list, not arguments for deleting the page. And as far as it goes, I have not developed a standard for this list, the principle I expressed above was not a criteria for inclusion on this list, but for existence of it. Sorry if that was unclear. I thought I had made the point that I did not disagree with the potential value of better inclusion criteria earlier, but I guess you missed it. However, it is still applicable, and you are certainly welcome to bring it up on the talk pages of that page. That's a clean-up problem, not a deletion one. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can come up with some criteria that won't make the list become a nightmare of POV and verifiability (which it already is anyway) then feel free. I don't see the value in the list as it stands and I can't think of any inclusion guidelines which would make it any more valuable. Otto4711 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What bugs me in debates like this is that those who want the "lists of fictional whatevers" deleted continually cite policy as an argument, to the point of notes to the closing admin that those recommending to keep are not citing policy. WP:LIST, WP:FICT and the oft-cited WP:NOT - none of these explicitly rule against such lists (and my reading of WP:FICT is that it practically recommends lists instead of an article for each entry). There is no black-and-white policy that "lists of fictional entities" are violating, and you have to ask yourself why? I would say, and this seems to backed up by the keep/no consensus results of the frequent AfDs on the topics, that there is considerable community consensus to keep these lists.
Then out will come a logical fallacy like the straw man argument or the slippery slope fallacy - naming a ridiculously broad and unverifiable list criteria (such as "List of Americans who own cats") and the assertion that if I think some lists are OK then I must want to keep the "List of straw men" as well. I'm not the ardent listcruft inclusionist you may think I am, I'll happily recommend delete where I think it is warranted (see List of fictional time travelers who have visited the Reign of Terror), but until it's there in black-and-white in a policy or even an unambiguous guideline, then I will continue to vote and argue as I see fit based on the merits of each list as I see them. --Canley 05:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the list component of WP:FICT. The policy doesn't suggest making lists of every fictional thing. It states that minor but encyclopedic things should be listed together rather than broken out into separate articles. So a dozen minor but important characters from the same film or book would have one "list of" article rather than a dozen separate articles. Similarly, if there were a fictional work with several minor but important businesses then a "list of businesses in X" article would be appropriate. Nothing in WP:FICT endorses the notion of gathering thousands of unencyclopedic bits of information into a massive list like this. Otto4711 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that WP:FICT does not forbid or even recommend against these lists - a guideline you have mentioned at least twice above as if it backs up your argument. I'm not saying it justifies or recommends creation of these lists... I am merely questioning your use of these same guidelines to back up your arguments when they do nothing of the sort. If I'm fundamentally misunderstanding these guidelines, which is entirely possible of course, please point out to me the statement(s) you think make your point, rather than saying that what isn't in the guidelines does. --Canley 14:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FICT doesn't explicitly forbid creating a list of right-handed fictional characters or fictional characters who are shown milking cows or all sorts of other trivial things. Nor for that matter does WP:FICT explicitly bar creating a list of all characters who have ever appeared in fiction. Would any such list hold up under an AfD? Lord, I hope not. Yet this is exactly the sort of list this is. Even if one were to accept the argument that WP:FICT doesn't explicitly forbid this list so it's therefore acceptable under WP:FICT, it is still a violation of WP:NOT because the list is an indiscriminate collection of items of information. Otto4711 16:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valuable list for reseaching fictional works. Lumos3 15:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepSome of the above discussion misses the point . It is not necessary for everybody to find a list useful. The analogies given to justify deletion are all about much more arbitrary subjects. There is a way to avoid redlinks, however: on the page for the work of fiction make a section for the company, and redirect to that sectio (assuming its important enough for a section.)DGG 18:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list is indiscriminant and overbroad. There are many thousands of possible entries, most with dubious notability. Eluchil404 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 no consensus. BorgQueen 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional online services

List of fictional online services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Listcruft; no encyclopaedic value. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 16:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A list restricted only to those sites that have been established might be reasonable, if the sites are themselves somehow notable, c.f. Doctor Who tie-in websites. This list isn't that. This list is any website that any character mentioned in any form of media ever, regardless of whether there is any significance to the site or it's a one-off reference that will never be mentioned again. Otto4711 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, your comments here indicate that you don't have a real understanding of what WP:NOT means. WP:NOT is not limited only to those items specifically mentioned. Indiscriminate collections of information are subject to deletion even if they do not happen to be one of the things specifically mentioned by name in the policy. The named items are those for which consensus has been reached and is not intended to be the only things that are indiscriminate. Otto4711 16:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I have, but I still think it's somewhat misleading to link to WP:NOT with a completely made-up (dare I say, fictional) statement as if your interpretation is clearly backed-up by this policy. I'm sure we both agree that this is true: "there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries"! In the absence of applicable policy we'll have to see where the debate takes us... --Canley 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 nothing to merge and not a useful redirect. W.marsh 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall Series Villains

List of Redwall Series Villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Listcruft, entirely unnescesary, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of villains (2nd nomination), where it looks like list of villains is getting deleted, never mind this. Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 22:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 02:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional media

List of fictional media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete another indiscriminate list of items which range from having some measure of importance in their source materials to near-random minutae. Otto4711 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. JuJube 13:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as arbitrary as an arbitrary thing. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful list Jcuk 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too vague -Docg 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I think it should be divided up into seperate articles. I don't see why it should be deleted when there are other list of fictional things like it. I can make a start to it by moving the operas out of the theatre section and into the already existant List of fictional musical works where there is already a section for them. The publications section could easily hold it's own article and the tv/radio shows already have their own articles so they aren't needed here. That leaves the slogans and the plays from the theatre section. Slogans just needs a bit of work and additions from Ninteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World and it could be it's own article also. Not sure about plays, could be merged with another article though. If this does happen I'll add all the sections/articles to my list of things to watch out for in works of fiction. ;) Tartan 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that several other of these fictional lists are also up for deletion, and more nominations may follow. So "there are other lists of fictional things" is a pretty slender reed to hang a "keep" on. Otto4711 22:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 keep. --Coredesat 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious films

List of fictitious films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list of items drawn from wide variety of unrelated sources, ranging from films which figure to an important degree to one-off parodies to films mentioned in passing throwaway lines. Otto4711 09:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's certainly a very extensive list. .V. (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 No Consensus to delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television stations

List of fictional television stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete another indiscriminate trivia list. Otto4711 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 keep. --Coredesat 05:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional television shows

List of fictional television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - thoroughly indiscriminate list, collecting everything from shows which play a significant role in another show to one-off parodies to throwaway references to shows that never actually appear on-screen. Otto4711 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If people are actually searching by fictional show title, which is preferable: to be taken to a list of thousands of other shows or to be taken to an article either about the show (if it's notable) or to the source material? Otto4711 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding only to the idea that "none of the points" of WP:NOT apply here...the points noted at WP:NOT#IINFO are nt exhaustive and nothing in the document indicates that they are intended to be. Is "collection of every non-existent TV show ever mentioned in passing in some other medium" one of the listed points? No. Does that mean that the policy precludes such a collection from being considered an indiscriminate collection of information? Of course not. As I noted in another of these, List of all Americans who own cats isn't prohibited by the letter of the policy. Do you think such a list wouldn't get deleted as indiscriminate and unmaintainable? Otto4711 00:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure as to what you think quoting that portion of WP:NOT does toward supporting your case. WP:FICT advises to use lists for minor items within a work of fiction. It does not suggest using one list to try to capture every single example of something fictional regardless of its importance to the work from which it's derived. WP:NOT instructs that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. If there were a List of fictional television shows from X then that would be a reasonable, focused list in line with WP:FICT and, most likely, a discriminated list in line with WP:NOT. A list of fictional television programs drawn from every source which includes such a program regardless of whether that program plays some actual roles within the real show or whether the program is merely mentioned in a line of dialog in a single episode, never to be heard of again, does not conform to WP:FICT or WP:NOT. Otto4711 15:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, to clarify, I'm not saying that WP:NOT supports my case - I'm saying that WP:NOT doesn't support your case either. And in the lack of policy on the matter, all we're left with is your opinion, my opinion and the community's opinion, which is looking more and more like it wants to keep these lists. --Canley 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there isn't an absence of policy. WP:NOT is policy and it prohibits indiscriminate lists by virtue of prohibiting indiscriminate collections of information. There is certainly a difference of opinion as to whether this list is indiscriminate which, frankly, I don't get because of the tremendously wide net the list casts in capturing material, but trying to consense on whether the list is indiscriminate or not is not the same thing as the policy's not applying. WP:FICT is a guideline for lists of fictional things and it counsels against lists across multiple source materials. Otto4711 15:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really sorry to keep harping on about this, and I promise I'm not being deliberately obtuse or obstructive here, but where does WP:FICT counsel against lists from multiple source materials? I've read and re-read it and I can see nothing that even remotely backs up that assertion. I'll happily admit I'm wrong about this if you can point out the line or section you're referring to (I assume you don't mean the discussion page). I see what you mean about WP:NOT, but, perhaps unfortunately, policy is formed by consensus, and there is no consensus otherwise there would be an explicit reference to lists. As I said, we'll have to rely on the community's judgement on a case-by-case basis - decisions I'll be happy to accept. --Canley 04:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere in WP:FICT is the notion of creating lists across works supported. Every example is presented in terms of items within a work of fiction. The broadest capture that WP:FICT endorses is within works set within the same fictional universe (such as Horses of Middle-earth) "Counsels against" may be a bit on the strong side but not by much. But even setting aside WP:FICT I still contend that the plain language of WP:NOT is more than enough to delete a list which seeks to capture every fictional television show from every medium with no regard to the importance of those shows either in the fictional universe it's from or outside it. Just because there is not a specific entry in WP:NOT that talks about lists does not mean that WP:NOT does not justify this and other similar deletions. I honestly do not understand how someone can look at this list and think that it isn't indiscriminate. I don't get how someone can legitimately look at this list of however many hundred or thousand entries it is, gathering everything from The Alan Brady Show which was actually integral to its source program to something like Admiral Baby from The Simpsons which was a two-sentence joke in a series that's generated hundreds of hours of content, and think that it's useful for research or encyclopedic or discriminating. Usually when a debate about something like this gets contentious I can still see some merit in the argument of the other side but here I can't. Otto4711 23:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 keep. --Coredesat 05:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations

List of fictional radio stations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - another indiscriminate collection of insignificant stuff. Otto4711 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Of the twelve stations with links, three of them (including both of the external links) are for real radio stations (which I will be removing as soon as I finish typing this) and one just links to the article for Brixton as opposed to anything to do with the fictional station. Another argument for deletion IMHO, if people can't figure out not to add real stations to a list called "fictional radio stations." Otto4711 04:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. --Coredesat 05:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animals at Chester Zoo

List of animals at Chester Zoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Unsourced listcruft, which at the most should be merged with Chester Zoo (which is also a poor article). Majorly 16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. Nishkid64 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of literature villains

List of literature villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list, there are way too many books with villains for this page to be manageable. A similar category surely exists and other indiscriminate lists are being deleted as we speak. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes. Axem Titanium 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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. Nishkid64 02:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of film villains

List of film villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list, there are way too many films with villains for this page to be manageable. A similar category surely exists and other indiscriminate lists are being deleted as we speak. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional heroes. Axem Titanium 01:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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.. Nishkid64 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains

List of villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete. We recently deleted a similar list of fictional heroes for being inciscriminate. This list is even worse as it gathers not only fictional "viallains" but real-life "villains" as well. Otto4711 00:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO you split is not any better. It is still unreferenced original research. A category would serve better.--Docg 11:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would a category solve OR issues? Zagalejo 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it doesn't solve OR issues but it does solve indiscriminacy issues. Axem Titanium 04:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Nishkid64 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of personifications of evil in fiction

List of personifications of evil in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - impossibly POV. There is no objective standard as to whether a character is "the personification of evil" or just a very bad person. Otto4711 00:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 per WP:SNOW. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people speculated to have been syphilitic

List of people speculated to have been syphilitic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

An article listing people who may or may not have had syphilis. Was nominated previously in March 2006. Previous keep editors were commenting on a well-sourced article, but it has only two book references as its only source of information. In no way meets WP:V and reads like WP:OR. One cannot have an article based on supposition and if any of the persons were alive it certainly wouldn't meet WP:BLP and would be considered defamatory. A large percentage of the articles for those listed do not mention syphilis and one can suspect that some of them are not entirely honestly motivated, such as Charles Darwin and Stalin. I suggest that any proven cases be added to the individual articles if not already and the article be deleted and/or create a category for this list if necessary. Khukri (talk . contribs) 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 Keep. Nishkid64 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters of La Comédie humaine

List of characters of La Comédie humaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - article apparently started and abandoned by creator, a "list of" article with no actual list. Otto4711 01:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As creator, I must protest. Deleting a list just because it's been untouched for a few days is not a good excuse. If we used that philosophy, Wikipedia would be stubless. Just because an article isn't complete doesn't mean it should be deleted. By its nature, it's an incomplete list. Also, it's less than a month old, it hasn't been abandoned, but neglected in light of the holidays, skiing, projects, and other articles that have taken my attention. It will be improved within days, well before this AFD is closed. —ExplorerCDT 01:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am calm, but I should assert that you probably could have best remedied any problem this list caused you by a friendly note to me either at the list's talk page, or at my talk page. Just stopping by my talk page you would have noticed that I put up the "I'm busy in real life right now" banner. —ExplorerCDT 02:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. Nishkid64 02:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animation villains

List of animation villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Delete - for all the same reasons as List of villains is nominated just up the page. Otto4711 01:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 per non-notable and indiscriminant nature . HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door

List of villains, inventions and pets in Codename: Kids Next Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

Delete - nominated once before, results no consensus. An indiscriminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items. Three months since the last AfD and the list has only gotten cruftier. Otto4711 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Contents would not be appropriate as individual articles, but as an aspect of an existing show that is notable, description of them is quite valid content on Wikipedia. Complaints about cruftiness indicate a need for clean-up, not deletion. In fact, that is language I would avoid in an AfD. Can you use different, less offensive language instead? FrozenPurpleCube 02:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't find "cruft" offensive in the slightest. If you object to "cruft," then go with "indisciminate list of non-notable, apparently mostly single appearance items." Not everything that appears on a television screen is notable, even if it appears on-screen during a notable program. Otto4711 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you don't find use of the term cruft offensive, you used it. However, I find it offensive, and I ask you to respect that feeling. It's derogatory and should be avoided. Is there some reason you couldn't have used some more neutral language instead? FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the subject at hand, since these things are hallmarks of the series, I can't understand deleting them. These things are often intrinsic to the plot of the episode they are in, not just minor things like gas stations. It's clear to me that if you're writing an article about the episode these things are in, you'd include them, so I have no problem with it being presented in this other format. So, I have to ask, are you familiar with this show? Because it seems to me that deleting this would be akin to deleting an article listing aliens in Star Trek, or places Sam Beckett jumped to in Quantum Leap. FrozenPurpleCube 06:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I very well might vote to delete such articles depending on how I felt after reviewing them. I would definitely vote to delete an indiscriminate list of one-off ST aliens and pets and I'd vote to delete a list of, say, one-off outfits, cars and siblings-of-leaped-into people from QL. Otto4711 14:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC
I wouldn't, because AFD is not a vote. I also wouldn't argue such, as that kind of list would be highly informative about the show. Personally, I wish List of Quantum Leap characters had a description of the leapees instead of just names. I'm glad List of Star Trek races does. And perhaps you should review them, and consider this list in that context. Now I don't think every car in QL should get an article. I can't think of any car that would even warrant a description. In KND the vehicles do matter though, a lot. Again, are you familiar with this show? FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear god, are you really going to get all Peter Pedantic because I said "vote"? I know AfD isn't a vote and you know as well as I do that any number of people refer to the process casually as voting. And as I've been trying to explain, my objection to this list is that it is indiscriminate. It lists villains AND inventions AND pets indiscriminately, and it lists items which appear in a single episode and are otherwise completely lacking in notability either within or outside the series. I would not object to a list of Star Trek aliens. I would object to an indisctiminate list of ST aliens AND pets AND whatever, and I would object to an indiscriminate list of QT outfits AND cars AND siblings. If the individual villains are notable, make a list of villains. If the individual pets are notable, make a list of pets. If the individual members of this list aren't notable then slapping them all together on a list doesn't make them notable. Note them in articles for the episodes if they exist or get rid of them. Otto4711 18:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but did I offend you by noting that an AFD is not a vote? I didn't mean to do so. I've had people chide me for the same mistake. I realize that it is one, but I try to resist being irritated by having my mistakes pointed out. It is hard though, so I understand if you were offended. My bad. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the article, this isn't an indiscriminate list, not in general, as the episodes of Codename: Kids Next Door are about these very things. I think the problem is, you're confused by the list title, which I can see is misleading. That may be part of the problem. I should have realized this sooner, my bad. What this is, is a list of the things used by the bad guys in the show. I'm not sure of a better title, but I do agree it needs one. However, given the nature of the show, I can understand why a list might be important. But it is not as much like the example you gave of ST lists and QL lists. There's actually a pretty solid connection there, but if you aren't familiar with the show, you might not recognize it.
Which leads to me repating my question though, are you familiar with this show? I've asked several times, but I can't find a response by you on it. FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.
  • Delete. The criteria for notability is universal, not relative to the issue it pertains to. For instance, just because 1. Quantum leap is notable and 2. The description of leapees in Quantum leap is important to the show Quantum leap, does not mean that a description of leapees in Quantum leap is notable. Same goes with local issues- if an issue is only notable to a particular subset of people, it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Although "Codename: Kids Next Door" may be a notable television show, that doesn't imply that every aspect of the show is notable. johnpseudo 19:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about every aspect of the show, but a particular aspect of it that is as definitive as Star Trek's Aliens or Quantum Leap's leapees. I have to ask, are you familiar with this show at all? FrozenPurpleCube 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 16:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Street Fighter characters

List of minor Street Fighter characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — (View AfD)

The article is just a list of NPCs and supporting characters from various adaptations. If it doesn't get deleted, it the very least it should be renamed and moved to List of Street Fighter NPCs. Jonny2x4 05:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Lists&oldid=100932421"