Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional monkeys and List of fictional apes

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. --Core des at 06:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional monkeys and List of fictional apes[edit]

I don't...know...what to say, really. These are pure indiscriminate lists; many, many, many, many fictional works have monkey or ape characters. These lists will never be usefully complete, and they'll never be useful for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see anything wrong with monkeys+apes (or any of the other fictional animal lists). They are informative to people. Many lists on here aren't complete (and probably never will be), so that's no excuse or reason to afd it. Just because you hate it, doesn't justify the AFD. RobJ1981 05:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about hating it? It's just so hopelessly broad as to be nothing but amusing trivia. Amusing trivia is amusing, true, but WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump WP:NOT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this page really useful when looking for a thing I forgot about His Dark Materials.
Keep. If the monkeys themselves are notable enough to have articles, why would a list of these articles be inappropriate? If the monkeys aren't notable, delete the monkey articles, but if there are a large number of notable fictional monkeys, the list could be useful for someone who needs some examples of how monkeys are portrayed in fiction, but doesn't necessarily need every single fictional monkey.
Keep, I have found several of these "List of fictional..." things very useful for some recent writing work I have done, and more than just amusing trivia. I do not consider them unencyclopedic, and I don't see the urgent need for completeness as a criterion for maintaining them. Just my opinion... I know we've had this discussion about fictional lists before, MIB! --Canley 06:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge preferred but Keep in any event. I don't think there needs to be separate lists, but I don't see this as being terribly widespread. Useful? I have no idea ... but certainly more useful than other lists I've seen kept around here like "films with hidden things" or whatever. 23skidoo 15:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a category it's redundant to, merge the two and if categorized, delete, if not, categorize and delete. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because anything to do with monkeys is awesom-o. It's a useful list in ways that a category would fail at. SchmuckyTheCat 06:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Do Not Merge, unless you're going to merge "List of fictional dogs" with "List of fictional cats". Monkeys and apes are not identical, despite the common belief that they are, so it would be more accurate to have two different lists. --Charlene.fic 11:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't seem much different to me than the other lists and categories of fictional animals. I don't have a problem with this. Dugwiki 22:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate? It's a list of monkeys and apes. How much more discrimination do you want? Listings down to the sub-species level perhaps? Keep. --Centauri 14:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a setter of crossword puzzles I find lists like this very useful - both for the setter and the solver. Besides, A. E. Housman’s dictum that ‘all knowledge is precious whether or not it serves the slightest human use’ is an important one for any work of scholarship. Tim riley 10:42, 20 October 2006 (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.