Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people slain in Romance of the Three Kingdoms

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of people slain in Romance of the Three Kingdoms

Unencyclopedic list. Yes, the work is very important. The list of kills from such a work, however, is simply too much detail. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure plot summary. --Eyrian 15:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another "list of", which are usually categories if they need to exist at all. And this doesn't. Pharmboy 16:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, in fact, classifies by killer, which is useful information. Categories could not do this without both creating articles on all these characters, which would be cruft; and creating absutdly small categories, like Category:Romance of Three Kingdoms characters killed by Cai Mao, with one entry. These would be (rightly) deleted at CfD. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Because half of them have articles already, this would be perfect for a category/subcategory change. Cat of all killers, subcats of each killer, articles on the killed. This 'article' already has the category structure in place. Being categorized would simply add more structure and make it easier to list the categories in related articles instead of "see also"s. Pharmboy 18:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are betting that the other half of them are not perma-stubs. You are also advocating the creation of several dozen new categories, none of them with much chance of growth and all but four of them under a dozen members, most under 5; this in order to get rid of one list article. Go ahead and make the cats if you like; I doubt they'll survive. But in the meantime leave the list article, for those of us who find that easier to navigate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it assuage anybody's objections if we made this into a table (one or two lines for each character: Name, # killed, names of victims? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note; this is more work than I care to do at the moment. Please userify a copy if deleted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why someone would disagree with this page. Other than the fact that it is "too much info for one book" or whatever. All the facts are cited and truthful, and really possess no real reason to be deleted. I mean clearly thus far many of you feel differently, but i personally don't understand why. --EveryDayJoe45 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is purely plot summary, which is not permitted per WP:NOT#PLOT. --Eyrian 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not call this list a plot summary at all, its a list of generals slain in a book about war, nothing else. However, i guess everyone has different categorizations, so I won't argue against your claim. --EveryDayJoe45 00:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, yes. Truthful -- that depends on what you would define "truthful." I'd argue that it is not "truthful" in the sense that it bears no historical reality, and confusingly may suggest that it was in fact historical reality. --Nlu (talk) 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How about a List of people slain in the Harry Potter series? _dk 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well since there was about 10 people killed in that series it would barely constitute for a category let alone a page. However, _dk, your opinion is still respected. --EveryDayJoe45 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a directory (of people killed in <book>) Corpx 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is simply not needed, if not it's only fair that we include "unnamed soldiers at ABC" Suredeath 17:02, 27 July 2007 (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.