Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional laws and rules

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional laws and rules

WP:NOT - Indiscriminant list of fictional' laws. The scope of this article is unmanagably large and serves no useful purpose. Would be more useful if it only included fiction that incorporated a fictional law as a core theme or plot device, but even then it would be a stretch. Unencyclopedic content, unmanageable scope, zero utility. /Blaxthos 13:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rule #1: delete all useless and unmaintainable lists without mercy. Rule #2: sentence their authors to the pillory on the largest public square in town. Rule #3: Spray the words "List of" with repellent and cover them with bear traps and land mines to discourage further interest. --Targeman 14:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and an arbitrary list. - Cyborg Ninja 17:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:OR and WP:IINFO, also a failure of WP:V. Definitely a non-notable intersection here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- pure listcruft. --Boricuaeddie 18:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is original research and, theoretically, could get full of laws made up one day in school. Useight 00:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see why tbings like the Prime Directive and the Three Laws of Robotics can't be grouped together. I'd like to know some of their non-English equivalents. Kappa 03:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While the article does little that couldn't be accomplished by a category, there is no sense in which this is OR; there is no novel position being taken or advanced on the basis of the list. WP:OR is so overused and misapplied as a critique that any nomination for deletion on its basis needs to be looked at skeptically. RandomCritic 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. There is no objective relationship between all of these items beyond the (unspoken) relationship that almost all of these "rules" come from fantasy/gaming/science fiction sources. In other words, one can infer that this is a fandom collection of items that are all familiar to the authors but have no other relationship. Not precisely OR except to the extent that the authors may have based criteria on "if you like this genre concept, you may also like these others", but lacking any scholarly work on the subject of "the prevalence of theoretical rulesets in fiction" (or some such), there doesn't appear to be any argument for linking all of these exclusive items under one list. -Markeer 14:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list can grow to infinite size and is not neccesary. The Placebo Effect 14:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't this why there're categories?

132.205.44.5 21:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of, but the category can't explain anything about them, in particular which work of fiction something comes from. Kappa 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even fictional laws have their adherents. Obedience to a fictional law is optional, but they're often worth citing as an expression of someone's notion of what should be public policy. The "Prime Directive" is a, well, prime example; and, in fact, arguably influences perceptions on what to tolerate in other cultures. While I doubt that any of these would become legislation, the ideas that they represent are worth noting. Mandsford 01:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mandsford: If someone published an article about what fictional laws suggest as wish-fulfillment on the part of certain authors, in any peer reviewed journal of Psychology, Sociology, Literature or Political Science, I would certainly think that citation could add to an article. However, lacking any such citation to a secondary source, speculation on the significance of these laws is just that: speculation. I agree that there is certainly room for research on the subject you describe, I just don't think Wikipedia is the place to do, or present, that research. -Markeer 13:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly explained. Bravo. /Blaxthos 20:54, 1 August 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.