Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional pandas Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_pandas

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. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional pandas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List which fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Completely unreferenced, some of the pandas listed aren't even linked to the work they appear in. The fact that no attempt to reference the list or otherwise substantially improve it since the last AFD (ended in no consensus) indicates that deletion would be appropriate. Claritas § 21:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP has many of the same type of lists. No reason to single this one out, it does no harm. If someone is not interested in fictional pandas then skip it. Wolfview (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ehh... If the list was partially sourced, I'd say keep it. It's entirely unsourced at this point, which suggests, along the lines of WP:CLN's advice, that we make this into a category instead. It's obviously not completable, so category is the preferred choice. No objection to keeping it if someone wants to trim all the entries without articles and source whatever's left, but that's a lot of work. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The work involved is trivial, as I have demonstrated by sourcing the first entry. The reason it doesn't get done is that it is largely pointless busy work. Citations are only required for information that is controversial or disputed. The reason that this list has been nominated seems to be the usual hatred of fictional topics. This is a systemic bias which we don't see applied to other lists such as List of asteroids/118101–118200. A fictional panda such as Andy Panda is far more notable than asteroid 118101 and so a navigational list is quite sensible. If there's some particular entry which seems incorrect then please point it out or remove it. Deletion of the whole is excessive - a lazy way of avoiding the chore of doing actual editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with a "hatred of fictional topics", it's to do with the fact that this list can never be adequately complete, has no genuine inclusion criteria, contains content which may well be unverifiable or original research. The asteroid list is an encyclopaedic list which has inclusion criteria, and has been completed. I would strongly suggest that you read WP:NOTDIR - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)" should be deleted. Can you find a policy which contradicts that ?

• The term "loosely associated" so vague as to be useless. If we consider the examples given in WP:LIST — List of Australians in international prisons or List of Belarusian Prime Ministers — then how are we to tell whether they are loosely associated or not? The list before us seems as well defined as these, if not better. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absurd nomination as the list is obviously neither indiscriminate nor a sales catalog. The nomination complains that no work has been done. This is the poor argument of WP:NOEFFORT. Perhaps the nominator can tell us what work he has done as we see no signs of his activity on the article's talk page or in its edit history. AFD is not cleanup nor a way of extorting work from other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, thanks for informing me about the error in my nomination. I meant WP:NOTDIR - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)" should be deleted - I think this extends to lists of animals. Please be civil and assume good faith in AFDs, or I may have to take this issue to WP:AN. Thanks. Claritas § 12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in question has been edited by numerous editors. In proposing this for deletion, you are challenging their competence and good sense. Per WP:SAUCE, we may likewise challenge the quality of the nomination and the due diligence which has preceded it, per the proper process. If you do not care to have your handiwork inspected and and criticised then please do not submit it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a central principal of Wikipedia to assume good faith. I'm trying to improve the wiki by the discussion of what I see as listcruft and if I consider a list to be fundamentally unsuitable, WP:AFD is a perfectly suitable place to discuss it. I'm not actually challenging anyone's "competence and good sense". Well respected and productive editors have produced articles which have been deleted. I'm simply questioning whether there's a consensus to keep this on Wikipedia. Let's be calm and discuss this sensibly. Claritas § 16:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Better sourcing would be valuable, but none-the-less a useful list Vartanza (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR.Other such lists should be deleted too. This is what categories are for. Verbal chat 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The guideline Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains at length that categories do not supersede lists; that these methods of navigation are complementary; and that we should not delete one to favour the other. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Only one element of this list has a reference. It seems odd to me that this article has existed for so long, and had such extensive work to it done by numerous editors, yet no one has been able to find sources. If you got rid of all the red-linked and non-linked elements in this list, you'd be left with a pretty sad looking article. Why is that important? Because red-linked and non-linked elements mean that they're likely not notable. So, can we jump to the conclusion that this list is a collection of mostly non-notable things? I think it would be safe to say yes. SnottyWong talk 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per WP:SALAT) to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. The result is nothing but a directory listing of every fictional character our editors can think of. ThemFromSpace 09:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This, like the other articles of this sort, are appropriate encyclopedic content. How is it too broad? If the items in it are significant figures in notable works, it's properly inclusive, not at all excessive. Lists in general are good navigational content, and we should not remove them if they might be helpful. It's not a directory--if we started looking for minor or background characters, we could find a great many more--but that would be non-encyclopedic and a directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not completely unsourced - it links to a number of Wikipedia articles which have their own sources. I do agree it is poorly sourced, as there are many with no such article, but I'm sure finding sources for most of the entries wouldn't be hard - and better than deleting the whole list. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. You don't make lists just because you like to make lists. If a list is unsourced, as this is, it should at least perform some sort of useful navigational function- and this doesn't. Useless clutter. Reyk _YO! 22:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list may be badly sourced, but is not unsourced - it contains a number of of links to other Wikipedia articles which provide their own sourcing. A lot of the entries are unsourced, yes, and the unsourced entries should either be sourced or removed - but that's not a reason to delete the whole article Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the entries are either redlinks or no link at all, and I reject the idea that an unsourced Wikipedia page is fine as long as it links to ones that are. That just seems like a great way to pile the encyclopedia full of original research and useless clutter. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that unlinked or relinked entries should either be sourced or removed, but list entries that link to sourced articles are not WP:OR, and it does not make them useless clutter - it is the work of but a moment to copy a source from the article to the list if that's what's needed, and that's a lot more constructive than just labeling the whole list "unsourced" and calling for its deletion. (Oh, and I'm not making a general claim that "an unsourced Wikipedia page is fine as long as it links to ones that are" - I'm talking specifically of lists, and if you look around you'll find many many lists that are not fully independently sourced, but link to sourced articles) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Save the Pandas - sometime ago someone tried to delete this article. That Pandacidal Plot was foiled. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wikipedia is NOTDIRECTORY and you can't stitch together any random group of things you find interesting. Not an encyclopedic group because there are no secondary sources that talk about this grouping. Despite claims for potential, there are no sources because none exist. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. (WP:SALAT) I've checked though the entries and found that only Andy Panda, Lord Noriyuki, Takemitsu SeiRyu, and Tarepanda that have stand-alone articles about the characters. And that's not assessing the notability of those characters. The rest are links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, redirect to character lists or works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree that this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the Wikipedia is not a directory of the WP:NOT policy. Just because there are other lists exist with similar issues doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned. —Farix (t | c) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional pandas? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. --Cyclopia^talk 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments Here--Mike Cline (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The argument that the list is indiscriminate is invalid; fictional pandas are numerous but not too numerous, and are easy to define. If there are problems with non-notable and/or unsourced fictional pandas in the list, that can be fixed by editing them out. The claim that pandas are appealing to consumers of animation and other media is true, and doubtless sources exist to back up this claim. List of fictional musk oxen, List of fictional sassafras trees and List of fictional talking toasters would probably be worthy of deletion, but List of fictional tigers would worth keeping. See Charismatic megafauna. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per same commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination). There is no consensus to delete, though improvement seems needed.--Milowent (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (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.