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/Weak consensus to keep. Same result Giggy ^Talk 07:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional dogs[edit]

Redundant with Category:Fictional dogs. How big do you think the article will be when it is a complete list of all fictional dogs?? Georgia guy 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see what informational or organizational purpose it serves to have a list of every fictional dog in existence. Keeping that in mind, if we were to remove all of the trivial/non-notable dogs, we'd be left with Category:Fictional dogs, which does a much better job of serving this article's potential purpose. Calgary 20:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is already very long and could get much longer. This is a perfect example of what categories are for. Useight 23:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because a category is more than sufficient. Dogs appear waaaaay too much in fiction to be listed like this Corpx 04:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It just takes one look at the article to see why it is better than a category: it provides additional information . for the category, one would have to examine each individual article, unless one happened to recognize a particular name. If any of them are not mentioned in the appropriate articles, they should be added there. The above argument seems rather odd--because they are frequently important, they should not be listed.DGG (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs are so common in fiction that a such a list like this is akin to making one like "List of protagonists in fiction" or something similar, and hence being loosely associated. Corpx 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least clean it out with a bulldozer. I've looked at this article, and the list of famous dogs, several times, and felt nothing but despair. Both are so profoundly, uselessly clogged with crap that I don't wonder if scorched earth isn't the best way to proceed. Ford MF 09:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe gut it so that the only entries left are those fictional dogs with their own Wikipedia articles... Ford MF 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with User:DGG's assertion that a category would lose the information present here. --mordicai. 20:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per DGG and Mordicai. The most useful aspect of the list is its division by medium; if the list is deleted, Category:Fictional dogs should be subdivided into Category:Mythological dogs, Category:Dogs in literature, Category:Dogs in film and so forth. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but fold in deleted material that is not already into the category. This list would be served just as well, if not better, as a category. Ease of navigation trumps the short description of the dogs, allowing users to find the dogs they are looking for more quickly and get to the main article about the dog (or its parent article).
Keep - There would be no point in this list if all the fictional dogs had their own articles, but many of them seem to be subsidiary characters in articles on other literary subjects. Lists are useful for indicating articles that are needed. Though many of these dogs do not need articles, this list serves a useful function, providing a means of locating articles referring to them. Peterkingiron 15:19, 19 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.