Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional analysts

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 all. There is obviously consensus to delete all of the lists listed in the list (12 pages total). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional analysts

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

This list, and some of the other lists developed by this author, is WP:LISTCRUFT, has no explanation of why the list is notable, and has a breezy informal quality that is not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes the following:

List of fictional video game designers
List of fictional photographers
List of fictional authors
List of fictional models - Speedy-deleted as per a previous deletion discussion
List of fictional CEOs
List of fictional inventors
List of fictional game testers
List of fictional pilots
List of fictional athletes

The following are also being considered (see below):

List of fictional racecar drivers
List of fictional fashion designers
List of fictional bakers

On review, it appears that many of the animated characters are in multiple lists. There has not been any apparent effort at completeness, if completeness is possible. This seems to be an effort to put the author's favorite animated characters into lists. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and, arguably, WP:NOTFANSITE. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all obvious listcruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All None of these topics exist as notable subjects with their own articles, so we don't need lists of them. Meters (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no objection to redirecting any that have suitable targets. Meters (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Others have already said it, but I concur. This is cruft. AlexEng^(TALK) 06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Completely unencyclopedic set of lists. List of fictional models has been [[1]] once already. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: author has just created List of fictional racecar drivers, List of fictional fashion designers, List of fictional bakers. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Damn you Robert! I was just bundling these for AfD. But yeah, it's delete from me because it's mainly list-cruft. There's also the citation problem, mainly being original research. Most of the contents are covered in other lists (or lists of lists, for example here), and therefore they all fail the criteria for stand-alone lists. DrStrauss talk 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @DrStrauss: does have a point that some of these can be turned into redirects, as I have been doing to some of the user's more recent creations like List of fictional dolphins and List of fictional hedgehogs. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RA0808 yes, I'd have no objections to that. Redirects are cheap after all. Some of them are plausible search entries, others I'm doubtful of but I'll make a full comment on each of them as I fear the creator will make more, despite our advice on their talk page. DrStrauss talk 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant listcruft, no redeemable value. --The Fifth Horseman (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All these are all lists of in-universe properties of fictional works, not lists of Wikipedia pages. This type of content is more suitable for TVTropes. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per WP:LISTCRUFT. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2017 (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.