Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional New Zealanders

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional New Zealanders[edit]

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

List which fails WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Considering the amount of fiction in all forms which has been published/broadcast in New Zealand, this list would be impractical and unmaintainable if expanded. In its current state it is simply unrepresentative. Claritas § 15:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty much per nom (WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR all apply here). It's important to note that because each of these characters are from a different fictional universe, the designation of being a New Zealander is pretty arbitrary cross categorization. Them From Space 15:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any special problem with the list. It seems to be limited to notable characters from notable works. More could be added to balance out the superheroes and science fiction characters. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT → "List of people" section. These fictional people are not notable for being from New Zealand so the list is completely arbitrary. It is also way to broad in scope. If every fictional New Zealander was in the list, it would become an unuseful index but in its uncompleted state, its just a random group. Its a non-notable intersection and therefore, should be deleted. Tavix | Talk 15:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 15:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Sorry for the slippery slope, but if we start with NZ, we could do similar lists for, say the US, UK, Japan, fictional places... Think of the scope of those articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and those who don't like it, won't be likely to ever find it anyway. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space isn't the issue, it's the "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" of WP:NOTDIR that is. Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. That the list is short now has nothing to do with it. If you think of a similar article from a nation that produces a lot more fiction like the US, you'd put together a gigantic list of completely unrelated charactesr, from Huckleberry Finn to Philip J. Fry to Cheerleader #78 in Bring It On Again to Sarah McDougal from Love Hina. The list of fictional cats you mention elsewhere in this discussion has the exact same issue, the inclusion criterion is too vast and too vague and does not follow WP:SALAT.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional New-Zealanders are not a notable subject as they have not been the subject of any other encyclopedia. : Being the subject of other encyclopedias is definitely not our criteria for keeping articles, let alone lists (which have different criteria). See WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a category for fictional New Zealanders would work better. dramatic (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categories aren't as easy to read, and don't allow for as much information to be presented. Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly see how it is harder to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fictional_New_Zealand_people than it is to refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_New_Zealanders . And surely the place for information to be presented is in the characters' articles themselves, not in a list? Daveosaurus (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does not fail WP:SALAT: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. 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 exactly the case: the list is specific in scope, being about (1)fictional characters and (2)New Zealanders only. Also: Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles , and that is the case here. Also, An exception is nationality/ethnicity, and we're doing exactly that. Does not fail WP:IINFO, not falling under any of the categories specified; the list is well discriminate in scope and in content, containing almost only notable entries (notable enough to have a WP article or being otherwise well covered in WP). Does not fail WP:NOTDIR, since it is not a Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, but a list of characters tightly linked by nationality (see also above). The "impractical" argument does not hold, since we use to split in sub-lists any list that becomes too large, see List of people for an example of such hierarchical listing. Arguments about the current state of the list do not hold, since per deletion policy we don't delete on the basis of article quality. About the "slippery slope" argument, we already have such lists for other countries. About the "a category is better" argument, remember that categories and list are by no means mutually exclusive. The list is not a random intersection: it is a good starting point to investigate the role of New Zealand in fiction. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Reyk _YO! 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of a category as per Dramatic. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More information there as a list article, and easier to navigate, than it would as a category. If you search for "List of Fictional" in the Wikipedia search bar, you will find 17,721 results. Everything from list of fictional cats to List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States Dream Focus 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list (once subdivided by headings) can only be subdivided in one way. But an article can fit into multiple subcategories as necessary - e.g. a character in a book which is made into a film. Which makes the categories better for navigation. But that is a long way off since the list only contains one valid item at present. (Remember how list entries need to be sourced?) dramatic (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating. Yes it will be a long list, but it will be finite, as it will be in proportion to our coverage of NZ fiction. The relevant policy is NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 08:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPAPER is not a free pass for inclusion and as such should not be solely cited in a rationale. If that were the case, one could just cite WP:NOTPAPER for anything and use it for their keep !vote. Tavix | Talk 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG comment addresses the rationale of who thinks that such a list would be "too large" or leading to a "slippery slope": we have no space problems, so those rationales make no sense. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it goes the other way too. Just because a list would be massive is no reason to keep an article just as thinking having a list that is "too large" is not a reason to delete. Tavix | Talk 20:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not--I agree the size of a list is irrelevant. (For that matter, hat a list has too few items is sometimes given as a reason for rejection, which is also irrelevant if its more than 2 or 3. Lists of finite size are objected to as finite, those of indefinite but large size as infinite. --none of this is relevant in accepting or rejecting). DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope no one creates List of articles that User:DGG has !voted to keep... :P (joking) SnottyWong ^squeal 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only to be dwarfed by List of articles that User:Dream Focus has !voted to keep..... Claritas § 10:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry. Both would vanish in front of List of lists that User:Claritas and User:Gavin Collins have !voted to delete.

--Cyclopia ^talk 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I don't really like most lists very much. Claritas § 18:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that. Which is sad, given that many users could find them good navigational helps. But oh, too bad, Claritas didn't like it... --Cyclopia ^talk 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a justification for !voting delete. I dislike most lists because most lists should be deleted from my point of view - they are indiscriminate and violate WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO, etc. Having said that, there are plenty of useful lists in Wikipedia, such as List of US Presidents etc.Claritas § 18:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're here chatting: Now, if tomorrow this list is deleted, and understanding that lists are navigational aids for our readers more than anything else, what has WP gained? What has our readership gained? This is something that baffles me. When we delete original research, completely non-notable entries etc. we help by not giving credibility to stuff which has no encyclopedic credibility. But in this case, of a list of notable entries? What users do you feel will be served by doing that? Articles are not kept on the basis of being useful, but lists, being navigational aids, are meant to be useful. So, what is the usefulness, the help, the service in doing that? I really can't get it. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be got rid of precisely because it doesn't do anything useful which a category wouldn't. It's a waste of editor's time to concentrate on improving something with no utility. Claritas § 18:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. Our guidelines disagree in full with this point of view. Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive : Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other. - Also, all else being equal, you shouldn't decide how other editors decide to concentrate their efforts. This is a volunteer project. --Cyclopia ^talk 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest two situations in which this list would be useful to the average reader of Wikipedia ? I can't think of any, either in this current state, or in any state. Claritas § 20:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you want to know something about the treatment of New Zealanders in fiction, the list is an excellent starting point. Better than a category, because it gives some quick context to the entries, and as such one can quickly focus on something he/she's more interested in than others. Also, the fact that you "can't think of any" does not mean at all that such situations do not exist. It only shows lack of imagination. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great starting point. At the moment, it is twenty or so indiscriminate entries. It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction.... Claritas § 18:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a great starting point.: Better than no starting point, for sure.

It may well grow to twenty hundred indiscriminate entries. : Are there 2000 notable NZ fictional characters? If so, good, but then it is not indiscriminate. If not, it won't grow. It is all matter of proper maintenance.

Bear in mind that this list would contain most characters in NZ TV, radio and written fiction: Provided they are notable (which I doubt being the case for most of these characters, but can be for a reasonable minority), where is the problem? --Cyclopia ^talk 21:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that being NZ isn't a particularly notable feature for these characters. We might as well create List of fictional characters who wear top hats. WP:IINFO is the policy here. Claritas § 22:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:SALAT: Nationality is explicitly indicated as a proper categorization. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real nationality and fictional nationality are very different kettles of fish. The fictional nationality is attached to a fictional New Zealand, and as the characters don't share the same fictional New Zealands, they also don't share the same fictional nationalities. Claritas § 07:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clutching at straws at its best, isn't it?

--Cyclopia ^talk 12:10, 22 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 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 that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That characters from NZ appear in fiction is made-up? DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are missing the point, DGG. Characters from NZ appear in sources everywhere, except in a list. If there are no reliable, third-party sources for the list itself, then Wikipedia does not have a rationale for its inclusion. If there is no such list in the real world, then there should not be one in Wikipedia either. This article would make an interesting appendices to a book or paper on NZ characters, but then Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you are missing the point of 1)The purpose of lists, that is that of being a navigational help to readers, not a topic 2)WP:MADEUP which exists to prevent articles to pop about non-notable stuff that has been done one day 3)WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. Gavin, you are really better reading policies and guidelines before appealing to them. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lists can have any number of purposes that are useful to editors, but that is not a valid rationale for their inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOT#OR says that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, and if this list has not been published anywhere else, then if it is an entirely novel and original list topic that does not exist in the real world, it has no place here. What is needed is some verifiable source to show that the list itself (not just its content) is not original thought. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now deliberately ignoring what WP:OR says, that I quoted above. And WP:ITSUSEFUL says explicitly: An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.". --Cyclopia ^talk 10:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not ignoring you, in fairness. I have nothing to say about the content of list; rather it is the existence of the list topic itself that is being challenged. It if has not been published or defined as a list topic in the real world, then Wikipedia should not have a seperate standalone list article about it. Usefulness or naviation does enter into it - good or bad, that is your opinion, but it is not supported by any source. What is missing is an external source to show that this list does not fail WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not fail OR. What I quoted above makes it extremly clear. The way we structure content has nothing to do with OR. Please read the above. I do not care if you ignore me, I care if you ignore the policies meaning. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you admit that it fails WP:NOT#OR. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Absolutely not. It doesn't fail WP:NOT#OR. It does not fail any original research policy, because structuring content is not OR, and if you actually read the policies you would hopefully understand that. Please tell me which part of WP:OR, WP:NOT#OR the list "fails". I repeat here what I quoted above, and this time please read it and comment on it, do not ignore it: WP:OR, which is material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources., combined with any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.. Here (and in also all the other lists you !voted to delete with the same rationale) we have inserted no fact,allegation,idea or story not already published by RS , nor we advanced any position not advanced by sources. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. SnottyWong ^verbalize 23:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic of fictional New Zealanders has pedigree and merit. Note for example one of the earlier icons of a fictional New Zealander: Lord Macaulay's visitor to a future ruined London: Ascari, Maurizio; Corrado, Adriana, eds. (2006). Sites of exchange: European crossroads and faultlines. Internationale Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft. Vol. 103. Rodopi. p. 135 of 296. ISBN 9789042020153. Retrieved 2010-06-19. [...] one of [Thomas Macaulay's] visions of the future ruin of London, from 1840, endured as a rhetorical commonplace for the rest of the nineteenth century, being given huge additional currency by Gustave Doré's famous illustration, 'The New Zealander', in London, a Pilgrimage in 1872.[...] Macaulay's identification of the new Zealander as a symbolic tourist who will represent a new world when power shall have passed from the old one, [...] centres on the Thames. And fiction by New Zealanders too has contributed to archetypal images of fictional New Zealanders: recall the importance in New Zealand literature of the "Man Alone": Sturm, Terry, ed. (1998) [1991]. The Oxford New Zealand History of New Zealand Literature in English (2 ed.). Auckland: Oxford University Press. p. 157 of 890. ISBN 0 19 558385 X. Chapman commented that for the writers up to 1950 their 'way of examining the society they depict' was primarily through 'the individual isolated in every sense, who may or may not explode into violent gestures under the distorting weight of a pattern he does not understand'. [...] Although John Mulgan's novel gave this Man Alone pattern its name, it had appeared earlier in the novels of Lee and Hyde, and even its later appearances may not have been influenced by Mulgan, for his novel was not widely available in New Zealand until reprinted in 1949. But even in the modern period too, non-New Zealanders have expanded or revived the image of fictional New Zealanders as survivors and representatives of a post-apocalytic future. Thus "the Sealand woman" plays a significant role in the closing sequences of John Wyndham's The Chrysalids. (Compare Charles Sheffield's fictional universe of Cold as Ice and The Ganymede Club where a devastated Earth retains southern New Zealand as its last major populated region.) Wikipedia has the ability to build up lists of such characters and tropes. -- If the list eventually grows too large we can subdivide it thematically and chronologically as desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This is not a useful list in any way, easily achieved by appropriate categorisation. This kind of pointless article is a time sink which diverts editors from actually improving the project. As such, it is actually damaging the project. Verbal chat 15:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Categories are not ideal replacements for lists, as they may contain articles which are not members of the list. WP:IINFO has nothing against this list. WP:SALAT's applicability is also questionable; this list is only one facet off from List of New Zealand politicians (politician -> fictional person). Arguing WP:SALAT in this case suggests that politicians are inherently more important than fictional characters, which is questionable in the long run of culture. WP:NOTDIR is the best policy against this list, but the existence of other similarly precise lists suggests that unless you are prepared to argue that fictional characters (who merit their own articles) are not culturally significant, it still does not stand up. - BalthCat (talk) 23:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "tto long potentially" is not, per se, sufficient as a reason for deletion. And, as has been mentioned above, a category would eliminate what would otherwise be proper in this list, and well-known enough for such a list, even is not "notable" enough for a separate artcle on WP (or more likely result in too many very short articles). All things considered - keep. Collect (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly broad and thus indiscriminate. Fails WP:IINFO in terms of lists (see WP:SALAT). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the list gets too large, it can be subdivided into lists for characters from films, books, etc. --Pink Bull 01:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The open-ended nature of the subject (I'd wager that practically all local NZ literature features such characters) makes this unworkable, along with the still largely-unanswered problem that being from NZ does not unite these subjects in any way but rather simply collects them in as arbitrary a manner as a list of fictional characters by eye colour. Addressing the keeps:
- Pedant17's is interesting, but it rather speaks of the fictional portrayal of New Zealanders. This is a very different thing from an open-ended list of characters who may (and probably mostly don't) reflect the archetype given in his sources.
- Collect's comment makes a false equivalence: New Zealand politicians, by definition, work for the New Zealand government, and thus have a great deal in common with each other over and above their nationalities. Fictional characters have no implied shared characteristics except not existing. That a category might not be appropriate either does not force us to have a list; we can have neither.
- The rest don't make any arguments based on our guidelines as the majority of the project understands them.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:29, 25 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.