Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mythological objects

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 no consensus. If the sourcing and organisation does not improve I can easily see another nomination in say 3-6 months resulting in deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mythological objects[edit]

Delete. Even if every link were blue or sourced this list would still be far too vague and indiscriminate. JBsupreme (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it with Thunderbolts of Zeus. McWomble (talk) 06:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split and rebuild - split into lists from each mythology, and rebuild as a list of lists. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it needs to be split, so be it, but that's no reason to bring it to AfD, and I see no other reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can split the list either by mythology or object type to make it less vague. I see no reason for deletion. It's not beyond salvation just yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a split is performed I support the "by mythology" one. Having a collection of all the "mythological shields" i think makes the list indiscriminate. They are thousands and not all are notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes much more sense as Category:Mythological objects, which already exists. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not because the subject isn't notable, but because this seems to be ripoff of someone else's scholarly work, with no interest in sourcing. What I gather is that this is drawn from the listed external link, Lost & Found Chest from the Fantastical World, someone else's site that is very well sourced. What I see here is someone doing a Maria Von Trapp list of a few of their favorite things from that site. On further review, that wasn't a fair comment, and I'm withdrawing it. I suppose that this could be looked at as a list of other articles on Wikipedia about mythological objects, with more information added from those articles in order to keep it from being a completely indiscriminate list. This could easily have been assembled by going to categories like mythological objects, mythological weapons, etc., with the "source" being the different blue-links. Linking to other locations on Wikipedia is not sourcing. Mandsford (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More suitable as a category (with many subcategories), likely to be an immense and indiscriminate list. Just take a look at how many magical items there are in the D&D manuals -- most of them have a mythological ancestor. RayAYang (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A complete and sourced list would be very unwieldy, and it does look like a rip-off. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate list. Xihr 23:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bit unwieldy but could develop or disambiguate into something very useful, ntoable and encyclopedic. Deletion is not a good solution for an article needing work or reconstruction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Or rearrange in a proper order. --Infinauta (talk) 13:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think rename to "List of notable mythological objects", split to separate by mythology and rebuild this is the best solution for now. I think a list of notable mythological objects in Greek of Celtic mythology would be interesting. We can leave this article as a disambiguation article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that this makes it no different from the category already mentioned, and thus completely redundant. Plus, it doesn't address the arguments about the indiscriminateness of the list -- the problem with that isn't notability, it's encyclopedicness. Xihr 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rename to "List of notable mythological objects" would be pointless. When making a list on Wikipedia, it is implied that list members are notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too indiscriminate for Wikipedia. The only thing tying them together is "mythology" which a very broad concept. This article seems to be a dumping ground for anything related to mythology. The topic needs to be much narrower. Notable armor in Greek mythology would be a more acceptable scope. Themfromspace (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2008 (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.