List of ThunderClan cats ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

(DRV request wasn't completed by the nominator: I've compied this statement from the closing admin's page, as was apparently intended. Full disclosure: I'm the editor who originally nominated the article for deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)) reply

It is obvious that the proposers of the deletion that has occurred are not familiar with the article of the Warriors series and its subarticles. The Warriors series has been on The New York Times Best Sellers lists for the various volumes for years having sold many tens of millions of copies. It reaches its original intended audience of children but has crossed over and is read by a great many adults as well. The related subarticles and lists are highly relevant and pertinent to the subject. The most relevant phenomenon with a similar background is the Harry Potter series, let alone the Redwald series. In reviewing the articles in greater detail, it appears that they were created, were necessary, and appropriately done per Wikipedia:Article size, Wikipedia:Content forking, and Wikipedia:Splitting. The various clans are essential like the school houses in Harry Potter, substantially more so and relevant to the mythology in the Warriors series. I have looked at Chris Cunningham's mention of the Wikia:warriors site. Totally commercial, poor, irrelevant to the context of Wikipedia, and inappropriate. I have reviewed Colapeninsula's statement and disagree; the series is of major pop-culture importance. Both Hamlet and The Simpsons have much less in the character realm but substantially more material in detail than in the Warriors series here. Third party sources are lacking but a quick review using the web indicates that the New York Times info proves the popularity, as well as other newspaper sources. If it is deleted then 90% of Wikipedia should also be deleted. The articles are a work in progress and much better than many articles on Wikipedia. If this is deleted then all the subpages related to Harry Potter, Tolkien's works, Charles Dicken's works, Shakespeare's works, items related to King Arthur, etc. should be deleted to be consistent with the style and even handedness of the deleters. I seriously do not trust the competence of the deleters; they just seem too new to me and lack the proper judgement. Could they not have tried to be more constructive and input more sourcing or ask for it? If we permit their deletion to be sustained then we have reached a major impasse in Wikipedia and substantial reduction of content in Wikipedia is necessary to be consistent with policy, otherwise the policy itself needs to be reviewed and revised. Thor Dockweiler ( talk) 04:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse DRV is not AFD round 2. The AFD was even run for an extra week and still nobody came up with reliable sources or a convincing reason to keep it. Procedure correctly followed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, exactly per Starblind, and that isn't something I say very often. The idea that ThunderClan Cats deserve to be treated in the same way as great literature such as Dickens, Shakespeare, Mallory, or Tolkein is self-evidently ludicrous (although I definitely wouldn't mind trimming our Harry Potter-related coverage a bit). If large amounts of serious literary criticism of ThunderClan Cats emerges in the future, then there will be a case for subpages of it, but I'm not exactly holding my breath.— S Marshall T/ C 11:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. To write an article, you have to start with some third party sources. If you can find some independent discussion in reliable sources, then someone will surely userfy the deleted article for you. You can also ask for it to be emailed. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin' comment: If TD would like, I can restore the article to his userspace for him to find and add those sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn or relist. DRV was not fully completed as time is supposed to be given per item #1 in the DRV list to the administrator to reconsider. I am already aware that DRV is not round 2.
  In this particular case I just do not stomach easily editors' literal thousands of hours of work that is apparent to me just vaporizing into thin air. What a ghastly message to send to contributors. The pages and material involved seem appropriate to a series of literature involving more than 30 volumes, far more than the previous literature items I have mentioned (and even they have more pages). Judging by the editing I think another relist would be appropriate as most of the editors on this series seem to take vacations during the summer. My "overturn" reaction stands based on article(s) size per policy and good encyclopedic editing. Bramble claw x should be the person to userfy to per their request in the original AfD (and all other related articles if or when they arise). Thor Dockweiler ( talk) 23:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is implicit in the nomination. While it is entirely appropriate for a nominator to continue to participate in the discussion, please do not use the bolded "endorse/overturn" prefixes in subsequent comments. It creates confusion for the admin who eventually has to close this discussion and may give the impression that you are trying to 'stuff the ballot box'. Thanks. Rossami (talk)
• While I'm sympathetic to the amount of work invested, that still doesn't mean it's necessarily appropriate for Wikipedia. Is there, perhaps, a fan-Wiki to which this could be transwiki'ed? Jclemens ( talk) 05:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • As stated in the AfD nom (you did read it, right?), there is a wikia:warriors which an editor has asserted has already imported this content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 08:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and rename Purely as an AfD2 thing (and yes, I know exactly how much that matters here). This is a rather large series and having a "list of characters" (which is what this article was) is extremely reasonable as breakout articles go. Anyone have a count of redirects that go to this article? I'm guessing it's massive. Hobit ( talk) 11:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Here you go. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage provided in AfD or DRV. —chaos5023 ( talk) 16:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). I find no process errors in the discussion or the closure interpretation. The volume of content was raised during the discussion but does not appear to have changed anyone's mind. The nomination and overturn opinions offered here so far present no new arguments that lead me to believe the decision would have been any different. The fundamental problem of independent sourcing was unaddressed and remains unaddressed here. Rossami (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- Consensus at the AfD was clear. The DRV nominator presents no actual reasons to dispute the close, focusing mainly on WP:ILIKEIT and waxing lyrical about how we have to delete the entire encyclopedia if we delete his baby. Reyk _YO! 02:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - List of ThunderClan cats was an example of what happens to article length when the content added is unchecked against reliable source material. The list article did not stay focused on the main topic (probably because none with any usable limits was listed) and went into unnecessary detail. I would have preferred to see more discussion on how this list met or did not meet one or more of purposes of lists at the AfD, but consensus to delete at the AfD was clear. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 11:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - It's fairly notable, and many list articles don't have great sources anyway. -- Nathan2055 ^{talk - contribs} 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • There's a big difference between "doesn't have great sources", which is admittedly true for many list articles, and "no non-primary sources exist", which is why this one was deleted. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 20:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply

• Question for the original AFD nominator. List of ThunderClan cats was a split from List of Warriors characters and I've noticed that you have now nominated all the rest of the sublists for deletion. Why didn't you do this from jumpstreet, why was List of ThunderClan cats first nominated by itself? Another option might have been to start a discussion about upmerging the notable characters back to the parent list. This might have been suggested by some if the whole shebang was nominated together. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC) reply