Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books (2nd nomination)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books[edit]

[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)

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books from periodicals Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books from non-print media. Really struggling to see why anyone thought such an indiscriminate collection of passing mentions like those in this image in the list have any significance whatsoever. No indication that any of these have bearing on the books' plots or relationship to each other. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC) Also nominating[reply]

I have not read these, so exclude them if you want, but if any of these mentioned have any significance they should be in the book's own plot summary.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider purging the first list of all non-notable fictional books (Category:Fictional books) and deleting the other two per WP:NOT. Most of this is basically fancruft with no LISTN/encyclopedic value. Keep arguments in the last deletion discussion (2006) boiled down to ILIKEIT. I would not object to deleting all three. b uidhe 21:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. The two specific lists are definite deletetions, per WP:NOT and failure of WP:LISTN. The broader list should also be deleted since, while the overall concept of Fictional books may be notable, this huge, almost entirely unsourced mass of cruft is not, and completely fails WP:LISTN. The already existing article on the concept of Fictional books can, and already does, cover notable examples. Rorshacma (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Total WP:INDISCRIMINATE cruft that is mostly WP:OR. Fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is quite blatant listcruft. Reyk _YO! 05:52, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This is an indiscriminate list. Lists are not a way to do an end run around notability guidelines. Many of these works never exist as more than name dropped titles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the reasons already stated above me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTN Dartslilly (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2020 (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.