Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockatrice in modern fantasy fiction and games

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. Sr 13 04:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatrice in modern fantasy fiction and games

Trivia collection of references, some of which aren't even about cockatrices ("In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, there was also a basilisk; but the creatures were very different."). Eyrian 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete Does it even need to be said at this point? CaveatLector^Talk 22:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh...squash, and quickly, I'd list the reasons but it's self-explanatory. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-contextual trivia. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 00:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one is easy. Punkmorten 00:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~because they didn't mention Gemstone IV. Er.. I mean.. list of loosely associated topics, or whatever the current argument against pop culture lists is. Spazure 07:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)~~ fails WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOTE too. Spazure 05:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is there an impression that it is non-encyclopedic? A encyclopedia collects information on topics of interest. This is a type of character, used in different games and fantasy because it is assumed to have a certain basic set of characteristics that will be meaning to the people playing/reading the material. How it is used is encyclopedic. How it is used wrong is also valid content: the two items on Potter simply need to be combined--minor editing problem.

Comment: I am not sure how to interpret the above argument--does it mean, I dislike the article, and I therefore want it removed, and I don't care what argument may be used--appropriate or otherwise.? AGF, that must not be the meaning intended, because who would actually !vote in an AfD for the express reason of dontlikeit. DGG (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to me (which I can't tell for sure), actually, I like lists -- they're amusing. Nonetheless, WP:ILIKEIT isn't a good enough reason to keep something, and I know that there's a current policy against "in popular culture" lists in general (note: not every single one, in fact I helped fight for one just last week.. but in general) -- I'm just too new to understand and/or remember the specific policy, but I know somebody else will inevitably cite it before the close of this AfD. Once I know what it is, I'll change my statement to be more specific. Spazure 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cockatrice and then delete. Mandsford 23:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If content is merged then the history cannot be deleted for GFDL concerns. Jay32183 01:40, 29 July 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.