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, defaulting to keep. It seems that the crux of the argument here is whether or not the list is discriminate per the style guideline for lists, and a number of equally good arguments are raised on both sides. The comments in support of deleting the list argue that its members are linked only by virtue of their being the same species, while the comments in support of retaining it argue that the fictional nature and independent notability of the list members refutes this claim.

After discounting the arguments supporting the deletion of the list in favor of a category--as Colonel Warden points out, the two are not mutually exclusive--it seems that there is no firm resolution on whether or not the list is sufficiently discriminate. --jonny-m t 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Pandas[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and make into a category instead. JIP | Talk 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already a category that existed before and is the source of some of the contents of this list Category:Fictional pandas. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a focussed list and so not indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indiscriminate, but redundant oif there is already a catergory.Yobmod (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List and categories are complementary per WP:CLS and so that's not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. People use encyclopedias to find information. Under what circumstance could someone possibly pick up an encyclopedia, asking, "I wonder how many fictional pandas there have been?" I also can't picture the folks at Britannica sending historians or other experts to research the matter. I'm sure Disney appreciates the advertisement, though! ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, a topical circumstance might be that, having enjoyed Kung Fu Panda, readers might look for more of the same; look for background on pandas; look for tie-in opportunities to preserve this endangered species. What seems more bizarre is, now that a volunteer editor has gone to the trouble of researching and creating this article, that other editors should go out of their way to attack it. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread WP:N. Notability is not established by popularity. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 15:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat did ask. --Kiz o r 17:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People use encyclopedias to find information in an organized way, and this is the best way to organize this information. It can do what a category cannot, which is to indicate the works. It is not indiscriminate, for it includes only the notable ones, the ones with Wikipedia articles. If there are some notable ones missing, we can add them; a list is not indiscriminate because its incomplete. It would be indiscriminate if it included every fictional panda, even in non notable works, but it does not do that. No I can't picture Brittanica doing it, which is why we have organized Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have heard this from the nominator already. What neither of you have done is provide the slightest evidence that this article fits this complaint. Your comments thus fail WP:VAGUEWAVE and so should be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the closing admin to decide. I don't see it useful that you are just insulting comments others made. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion not a box-ticking vote. Pointing out weaknesses in the cases made is normal practise here. Please take no offense since none is intended. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, how is a list of unrelated fictional characters relevant if the only linking factor is that they're pandas? This is very indiscriminate and loose-linked, not to mention the category is already doing its job. That is how it's indiscriminate. If you don't think that way, then prove me wrong. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant in that we have a major new fictional panda which seems to have generated some interest in the topic. The existence of a similar category confirms this relevance but is not a reason to delete because lists are well-accepted here as a useful alternative, per WP:LIST and WP:CLS. The list is not indiscriminate because it has a clear focus which seems comparable with the examples given in WP:LIST: List of scholastic philosophers, List of Star Wars starfighters, List of Belarusian Prime Ministers, List of Australians in international prisons. It fits into the existing structure of List of fictional animals which contains many similar lists for other types of animals: List of fictional bears, List of fictional monkeys, etc. So, we have an orderly and discriminating structure into which this list fits perfectly. It is therefore demonstrably not indiscriminate. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if I had it my way, I would nuke more than half of those fictional animals lists for being indiscriminate lists, so that argue doesn't fly with me. Really, they're hardly connected at all. I can understand the first four, and I know very much about lists and their organization. But really, a list of every panda in fiction? It doesn't matter if it's complete or never ends up completed, the only discriminating factor is that they're pandas in fiction. That's rather indiscriminate, if you ask me. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those animal lists are the indiscriminate ones, in your view? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every list that is organized by species. None of them are discriminate by crossing the entire realm of fiction just to link creatures by their species in unrelated works. That's indiscriminate information. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to be basing a large part of your argument around the recent release of Kung Fu Panda. I suggest you reread WP:N though, especially the part where notability is not established by shear popularity. And even if it was, fads come and go, and this list would be hitting AFD in a couple months anyway. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 15:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mentioned Kung Fu Panda by way of explanation of why we are are here - the article was created only a few days ago and so is still new and in need to development. But the movie is certainly notable and so gives our readership all the more reason to be reading about pandas here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest you read WP:NOTINHERITED? Notability is not inherited, and the page that the section I have linked you to is arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, as stated by WP:N, notability is not temporary, so five years from now when Kung Fu Panda is old news, will it still be notable? Absolutely not, and my belief is that it is not now. And that comes as part of being an indiscriminate list. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of this sort necessarily inherits its notability from the articles which it lists since it has no other content - the purpose of such a list is to help find and navigate this notable content. But the nomination is about the supposedly indiscriminate nature of the list. You have still provided no proof or evidence of this while I have demonstrated ample precedent for such a list. List of fictional monkeys was challenged at AFD using exactly the same rationale and the strong consensus was to keep. Why should we have a list of fictional monkeys but not a list of fictional pandas? To have one but not the other would be absurdly indiscriminate and no service to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. In this case, I believe no notability is inherited. And no, we shouldn't have one but not the other. We should have neither, but that's my opinion, and I've got a strange feeling this is going to end in no consensus. And you have provided no evidence to me that this is a discriminate list. Every panda that is fictional on Wikipedia is listed? That's just absurd. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided evidence - you just refuse to recognise it. Please indicate an example of the evidence that you want to see by reference to an existing list such as List of fictional monkeys. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that statement, the evidence you provided does not function to prove notability or show that this list is discriminate. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or convert to a category. However, if this is converted to a category, the category must be up and running before the list is deleted. In no way should the effort collecting this list be discarded. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category already. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 21:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject adequately covered by the category. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it does not establish notability and the category is sufficient. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:36, 4 July 2008 (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.