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.
A huge, huge list of characters from the franchise The Animals of Farthing Wood, from the books and an animated series. Everything is completely in-universe and just retells the events from the characters' point of view. There is no actual encyclopedic information, i.e., creation, development, reception, cultural impact. There isn't a single reference. Suitable for a wikiaFandom page, not Wikipedia.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Both the TV series and book series articles just point to this list, so we’d be merging at a minimum. See
WP:ATD, which should have been considered
WP:BEFORE attempting deletion. You don’t need permission to merge and redirect. postdlf (talk)
16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The information about the animals is quite encyclopedic as it's likely to be what most readers want. And there's plenty of production information too such as first/last appearance and which media the character appeared in. As there's at least 8 pages about the various books and TV productions, it makes sense to have a list of characters like this as a common
appendix, otherwise the information will be repeated in each of those articles. As for Fandom, that's a rival, profit-making concern which exists to exploit volunteer effort to sell advertising. Why does the nominator want to promote that? Do they have shares in it?
Andrew🐉(
talk)
16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
If the TV series just shared the characters with the book series, it can link back to that article if this is merged there. So long as the character descriptions are somewhere, as that is a necessary part of our coverage of a notable series or franchise. These character list AFDs always neglect to consider that and instead pick apart the page in isolation. Really a waste of our time. postdlf (talk)
17:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is not encyclopedic information in the slightest,
Andrew Davidson. There is no actual coverage about the characters beyond in-universe material. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, not for people wanting to find out what the first or last appearance is of a particular fictional character in a particular work of fiction. And why the hell are you randomly speculating that I have shares in Fandom? That's just weird not
WP:AGF.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK17:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, a gargantuan pile of
original research that fails
WP:LISTN by virtue of being completely unsourced, and
WP:PLOT by virtue of being entirely in-universe. There is no evidence that the characters of this series have been subject to the analysis necessary to pass LISTN.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
06:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Holy crap, what a steaming heap of NOR violations. The nom and Devonian Wombat said it all, but let's add
WP:V to this as well. I don't give a rat's ass what "production information" or "quite encyclopedic" content is in it if it
isn't sourced at all.
Ravenswing 09:51, 10 August 2020 (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.
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.
A huge, huge list of characters from the franchise The Animals of Farthing Wood, from the books and an animated series. Everything is completely in-universe and just retells the events from the characters' point of view. There is no actual encyclopedic information, i.e., creation, development, reception, cultural impact. There isn't a single reference. Suitable for a wikiaFandom page, not Wikipedia.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Both the TV series and book series articles just point to this list, so we’d be merging at a minimum. See
WP:ATD, which should have been considered
WP:BEFORE attempting deletion. You don’t need permission to merge and redirect. postdlf (talk)
16:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The information about the animals is quite encyclopedic as it's likely to be what most readers want. And there's plenty of production information too such as first/last appearance and which media the character appeared in. As there's at least 8 pages about the various books and TV productions, it makes sense to have a list of characters like this as a common
appendix, otherwise the information will be repeated in each of those articles. As for Fandom, that's a rival, profit-making concern which exists to exploit volunteer effort to sell advertising. Why does the nominator want to promote that? Do they have shares in it?
Andrew🐉(
talk)
16:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
If the TV series just shared the characters with the book series, it can link back to that article if this is merged there. So long as the character descriptions are somewhere, as that is a necessary part of our coverage of a notable series or franchise. These character list AFDs always neglect to consider that and instead pick apart the page in isolation. Really a waste of our time. postdlf (talk)
17:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
That is not encyclopedic information in the slightest,
Andrew Davidson. There is no actual coverage about the characters beyond in-universe material. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, not for people wanting to find out what the first or last appearance is of a particular fictional character in a particular work of fiction. And why the hell are you randomly speculating that I have shares in Fandom? That's just weird not
WP:AGF.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK17:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, a gargantuan pile of
original research that fails
WP:LISTN by virtue of being completely unsourced, and
WP:PLOT by virtue of being entirely in-universe. There is no evidence that the characters of this series have been subject to the analysis necessary to pass LISTN.
Devonian Wombat (
talk)
06:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete: Holy crap, what a steaming heap of NOR violations. The nom and Devonian Wombat said it all, but let's add
WP:V to this as well. I don't give a rat's ass what "production information" or "quite encyclopedic" content is in it if it
isn't sourced at all.
Ravenswing 09:51, 10 August 2020 (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.