Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional anthropologists

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ashley yoursmile! 05:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional anthropologists

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Excessive uncited pop culture trivia in the form of an indiscriminate list. The article doesn't explain how fictional anthropologists have had a cultural impact, and I feel it isn't encyclopedic. Waxworker (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy pass of WP:LISTN – see the Anthropologists in Films: ‘The Horror! The Horror!’, for example. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Individually non-notable elements of a fictional work (such as characters and episodes) may be grouped into an appropriate list article." (from guidelines. A List of Dilbert characters is cited in the guidelines as the kind of list that is acceptable (because the individual entries are not notable but the total is acceptable). Fictional anthropologists come up in more than just pop culture, making them more meaningful than a comic series. The entries are either linked to Wikipedia articles or references are given to their sources (books, films, television shows). The list is not indiscriminate: the entries are ones that are of the type named in the list title. Kdammers (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:AfD reminds me quite a bit of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, where the outcome was converting a list article that looked like this into a prose article that looked like this. Listing every time concept X appears in a work of fiction is something TV Tropes does; we should strive to write something about concept X in fiction, not just enumerate examples. This applies outside of fiction too, of course—it is the difference between writing the article Climate of London and creating the article list of rainy days in London. I believe the article linked by Andrew Davidson demonstrates that a prose article can be written. I would be in favour of converting this list article to a prose article as was done with Eco-terrorism in fiction, although unlike in that case it we would obviously need to change the title as well here to not be called "list of [...]". TompaDompa (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew's note about WP:LISTN, with another example that covers fictional anthropologists: "On Forensic Anthropologists in Fact and Fiction." Additionally, "unencyclopedic" in the nomination is especially vague when even-further qualified as merely the nominator's "feel[ing]" regarding this list. I do agree with TompaDompa that a prose article is preferable, but don't think this is absolutely necessary for its continued existence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors above. In my own words: As far as I understand a list is justified on Wikipedia either as a sensible grouping of topics that are treated somewhere on Wikipedia (or have secondary sources), or because the topic, in this case fictional anthropologists, itself is notable. I feel the nomination does not make clear on both points why this should not be the case here. I think that "I feel it isn't encyclopedic" does not carry any weight as long as it is not supported by more arguments. Sure, this list can be improved, e.g. by citations (though by its nature, the entries themselves already give primary sourcing), but that is not a reason for deletion.

For the first point, "fictional anthropologists" is clearly delineated, and as there are many blue links in the list, it is something that does appear on Wikipedia and is therefore not trivial.

For the second, the fact that eight such lists were nominated within minutes makes it highly doubtful that the nominator did a proper WP:BEFORE search, which is part of the normal AfD process. As found by above, the topic itself seems to be notable, and the list should be kept on that grounds also.

As for changing this from a list into an article, I have no particular aversion against that, but in my opinion the list itself also has its uses. In think the comparison between Climate of London and list of rainy days in London is not quite accurate, because if properly used this list is not indicriminate. We don't have entries about single rainy days in London because they are not noteable. We do have e.g. a List of European windstorms, because many of them (and the topic itself) are notable. Daranios (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (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.