Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional guidebooks (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional guidebooks[edit]

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

No clear inclusion criteria, no sources. Last AFD in 2008 was "keep but cleanup", but that doesn't seem to have been done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of WP:LISTN, and the second section is off-topic (about real guidebooks to fictional universes). Looks like WP:FANCRUFT. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-compliant deletion rationale articulated by nominator: Inclusion criteria are easy to create, and AfD is not for cleanup no matter the interval between AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR listcruft. There are not even enough articles on fictional guidebooks to have their own category. At most it would merit an "in fiction" section at guide book._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost completely unsourced listcruft. It seems that there's been no attempt to fix the problems since the last AfD, which must now be taken as evidence that the problems can't be fixed. A merge is not appropriate for two reasons- a) we don't merge unsourced content. And b) all that would be mergable would be the name of the guidebook into the work of fiction it's from, and for guidebooks notable within their universe they will already be mentioned. So a merge would have nothing to do. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that many, if not most, of the entries are WP:OR. Calling an encyclopedia, or an index of monsters, or the religious tome of the Ferengi a guidebook seems like a subjective determination to me. Reyk _YO! 07:08, 12 January 2018 (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.