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. For a list to be kept, either the general concept of the list has to be notable (a list of X is acceptable if X is notable), or the individual entries in the list should have some but insufficient independent notability (like is the case for many character lists and episode lists). In this case, no evidence is provided that the individual creatures have received any attention, nor that they as a group have received attention. This is not about fiction or not, a list of "inhabitants of village X", with people who would never get their own article individually, would be deleted for exactly the same arguments. Fram (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in The Sword of Truth[edit]

Article gives undue weight to minutia, is unreferenced, unwikified, written in incorrect tone, and unencyclopedic. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely detailed in-universe information for non-notable fictional elements which have not received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What, um. Doctorfluffy said. Nothing to distinguish this from Furniture in The Sword of Truth. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioning each books each one was featured in might be a good addition, but I no reason to delete it. Dream Focus 02:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 04:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate list article as a compromise. The elements in this sort of an article do not have to be notable. If they were, they'd be in separate articles. Deleting this sort of article tends to destroy any chance to compromise about fiction.DGG (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise between WP:V/WP:NOR and including content that doesn't meet those standards? This is culled directly from the books, and full of speculation and conjecture. There aren't even the sort of licensed encyclopedia-conceit sources you prefer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: That makes no sense, considering that the article's still unencyclopedic no matter what.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I am really glad we have editors to subjectively decide what is and what is not encyclopedic, becoming the self-promoted authority on whether to delete other editors good faith contributions. Ikip (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not glad you are substituting that tired rhetoric for discussion of the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DGG, so much for DGG and others grand comprise to allow lists to exist, and merge all individual character and episode articles. Once all the character and episode articles are deleted, editors will start going after the lists too, as they already have. Well written article, about a very popular series. Ikip (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a merge target; it's original research cut from whole cloth. Accusations of bad faith don't substitute for discussion of the article, and the fact that it's a list is immaterial.

As a historical note, this is the sort of list that logjams any sort of exception for lists in guidelines like WP:FICT. There are lists that are homes for scraps of information that are necessary for understanding and don't fit anywhere else. Then there are lists like this, lists for the sake of lists, of the form "List of stuff in [fictional setting]". Finding a good way to separate this sort of list from lists of characters is part of what always gums up each compromise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This AfD has been listed on: Terry Goodkind The Sword of Truth Ikip (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fancruft, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. This article belongs on a fantasy/sci-fi wiki, not this one. Unfortunately, this case appears to be a judgment call, as WP:FICTION is not a guideline, and not clear-cut on cases like this one either. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is fancruft because it has no sources, reliable or otherwise, consists mostly of reheated plot summary and is an indiscriminate collation of information. There is no compelling reason why this catalogue of fictional creatures is important enough to include in an encyclopedia. Reyk _YO! 11:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside for a moment, I wonder, is it any more or less notable than Magical creatures (Harry Potter). The primary difference between the two though is the extensive sourcing that HP gets, while this does not. But the sourcing is almost exclusively to JK Rowling's own website, interview transcripts, fandom forums and dedicated sites, etc... HP has benefited from the good fortune of having the bulk of its run happen during the internet age and subsequent explosive popularity. 7 blockbuster movies vs. midnight syndication certainly didn't hurt as well. The point I'm meandering to is, is there any leeway in WP:FICTION for novels whose popularity peaked well before the Harry Potter fan-created sources ever had a chance to exist? I would also note the existence of List of Middle-earth animals, wholly sourced to the novels themselves. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The HP lists are on the bare edge of what is considered good sourcing. Why cross the line from "Really bad sourcing" to "No sourcing whatsoever"? The Tolkien stuff is different; there's a great deal of scholarship there, even when the articles don't (yet) reflect it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as usual, sourcing for t his can come from the primary source, & is certainly possible. so it meets the criterion of being sourceable. Yes, it needs to be much improved. Better to work on it instead of trying to remove it.DGG (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Cat written by watching Fluffikins, your housecat. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is the very pertinent issue that these novels are not as notable as the Rollings novels. Those have quite a bit of real world attention. These, however, I have seen no proof otherwise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "real world attention" have thestrals and boggarts received? Tarc (talk) 05:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Those", in this case, appear to be the Harry Potter novels. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikip. EagleFan (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2009 (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.