Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional diaries

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. After being relisted this nomination has garnered only more solid keep arguments. With only three arguments (policy based as well) arguments, the clear consensus that's emerged from this discussion is keep. This is a non-administrator closing and I'm willing to request a review by an admin should anyone who disagrees with this close to request one, or I can reverse this NAC close, however, with that being said - the consensus here seems to be pretty solid and clear after being listed for two weeks. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diaries[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)

Too broad of a list. There are hundreds of fictitious games, and it is constantly growing. Furthermore, what makes these notable? It serves no encyclopedic purpose. Similar articles have been deleted in the past (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (3rd nomination)) JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 04:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disagree with "Too broad". Reference to games seems irrelevant. Seems a perfectly reasonable and useful list, not resembling the "fictional films" mentioned above. PamD 05:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTCRUFT, there's no sources that indicate that the three categories are notable as a cohesive list, so it at best violates WP:LISTN and might at worst constitue original research or WP:SYNTH. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit I began this article, in a very stubby form, at a time when categories didn't exist. Now that there is a category to cover these, I don't think it's essential. However, I don't see another article that discusses the characteristics of the genre - maybe I've missed it? If so, I'd be willing to change my vote. Deb (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. There is no real defined scope of this article and it's just a mashup of info that has been randomly found or added because someone was a fan of a particular work. It belongs on a fan website and was created over 16 years ago when standards on Wikipedia were much lower, and I don't believe for a second it would get approved as an article today. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) Could you please clean up your nomination rational, as your copy and pasted rational from this AfD is confusing people here. It might also be beneficial to cite specific policies in your nomination, like WP:LISTN. Thanks. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The reference to games in the nomination indicates its cookie-cutter nature so that the details of the topic have not been considered. There are numerous famous fictional diaries such as The Diary of a Nobody, which is a featured article, and so it is quite ridiculous to suggest that we can't or shouldn't have a list of these. Andrew D. (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a featured article is included in a list suddenly makes the list notable is neither based in policy or logic. We have Category: Fictional diaries. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:37, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing sudden about Diary of a Nobody as it has been in the list since it was first created in 2003. Yes, that's 2003 – sixteen years ago, when categories didn't exist as a mechanism. Since that time, the list has been edited by hundreds of editors and read by many thousands. As for policy, there's no discernable policy in the nomination – just opinionated arguments to avoid like "serves no encyclopedic purpose". That's quite illogical when the list has outstanding entries like the FA Diary of a Nobody and the vital article The Color Purple. It's this discussion which serves no useful purpose and so it should be speedily closed. Andrew D. (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew D. in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It aids in navigation, blue links to similar articles, so is a perfectly valid list article for Wikipedia. To the nominator, what difference does it make if a different article was deleted five years ago after you nominated it three times in a six month period? Those AFDs have nothing to do with this one here. Dream Focus 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a great resource for those looking up fictional diaries.
Keep but reduce - I should say that the first section, "Fictional works in diary form", is of a type that can be curated well, and restricted to existing articles. Section 2, "Diaries appearing in fictional works", smells of open-ended listcruft. Section 3, "Hoax diaries" - well... seems a bit out of scope, and I would not mix it in here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete Same basic deal as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies. The article at present is a completely unsourced OR nightmare; whether or not sources theoretically exist that could be used to build a better article, unless they are forthcoming in the article it can't stay. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D and PamD Lubbad85 (☎) 22:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar articles have been deleted in the past, but many are also kept, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination). At a WP:COMMONSENSE level, WP has huge articles of incomplete lists of notable items, but not always in a tightly defined sense. E.g. 2019. The key component that is usually dominant at AfD is whether the individual items are in themselves notable (e.g. have their own WP articles; as per 2019), and the definition of inclusion is not so broad as to be meaningless (per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional films (3rd nomination)). Ths list does meet these criteria and therefore serves as a useful navigation list (like a navbox, but too large to be a navbox) for a reader on the topic. Britishfinance (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen several such large but incomplete lists of notable items at AfD now (often under the nomination of WP:NOTADIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR), we should clarify WP:NLIST to give clear examples that such lists are acceptable in Wikipedia (e.g. 2019), and ones that are not (e.g. where the definition for inclusion is so broad, it is meaningless). This issue has beening going on for a while now: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vampires. Britishfinance (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion rationale does not relate to this article, and I don't really understand why this has been relisted - there seems a clear consensus to Keep. There are various suggestions to improve the article, but they are not reasons to delete it, and can be discussed on the article's Talk page. As for whether the topic of fictional diaries is notable - there are already sources in the article, and there are more that could be added (I will try to add some). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list has a clear inclusion criteria, and virtually all of the articles on the list have their own article too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I merged a section of another list into this one last year (see Talk:List of fictional diaries § Merge proposal), and I didn't see any reason to question the list's existence then. Some of the arguments for deletion here have been interesting to read, but weighing the arguments for and against deletion, I find the arguments against deletion to be stronger. Especially relevant is, for example, Deb's observation that there is a category for these items (Category:Fictional diaries) but there is no other article that explains what fictional diaries are, and the large quantity of Wikipedia articles on individual fictional diaries shows that such a general explanation is warranted: this list and its lead serves that purpose, and the category alone is not sufficient. Biogeographist (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2019 (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.