Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places in the Firebird series

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Firebird series[edit]

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

I am not sure how this even remotely satisfies the general notability guidelines. My rationale is pretty much the same in another AfD so I shall copy it here:

Through a recent lengthy discussion about the notability of fictional places, an editor Juhachi came to me with a concern that fictional locations with no "real-world" notability probably fail the general notability guidelines. Although I may not know much about the Firebird series, or how well known they are, but the fact that there are only two articles about books in this series (the third is still yet a redlink) does perhaps at least say something about how widely known it is. Even if the Firebird series is notable, notability is not inherited, especially for something that is not well-known. There are no secondary sources on this article either. New questions? 10:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems to relate to a particular series and there are many articles similar to this one (i.e., list of characters in (blank), et cetera). Seems like someone would gain from this particular article and it may not fit within the main article of the series. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The series certainly is notable, but none of the places have received enough attention by independent sources to qualify for an article, let alone a listing of all of them. The group itself hasn't received attention either--that is, there aren't any reliable sources critically examining the places of the Firebird series in general. Lord Arador (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much like characters articles, lists of fictional places like this serve as a place to record not-individually-notable elements belonging to a notable fictional franchise, where the individual elements--or at least some of them--are reasonable search terms, and there is either no single article to which locations can be redirected OR the single target would not be able to mention each redirected term without balance or size issues. Thus, this should derive notability from the fictional franchise, and serve as a landing spot for redirects from non-notable but reasonable search terms of other fictional elements. Think of it as one manageable, improvable list that serves to prevent the creation or re-creation of otherwise non-notable fictional element articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, doesn't that conflict with not WP:INHERITED? After all, all articles have to have notability based on reliable secondary sources; it would be incorrect to suppose that something has notability based on popularity alone.--New questions? 07:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework into a series article, Firebird (series), which currently doesn't exist. Yes, a list of locations in such a shape shouldn't have a individual page for itself. But it's a good starting point for a series article. How the information is portrayed therein, is a matter of editing, not AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- despite the excessive and unconvincing special pleading above, the notability of elements of a fictional universe do not inherit the notability of the parent work of fiction. All articles, and lists do in fact count as articles, need to demonstrate their own through reliable independent sources. This hasn't got any, and I can't find any. If this article is sourced at all it's only to the work of fiction itself, and I suspect that it actually consists of the authors' personal impressions of it. In my opinion this article is untenable as a stand-alone article and contains no content that can stand from an encyclopedic point of view. Reyk _YO! 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Places in a notable work of fiction are not automatically notable, but major places can be if the fiction is famous enough, and for even minor places in really important fiction, a combination article is a useful compromise, if only to prevent the proliferation of individual articles. NOT INHERITED has nothing to do with the situation of dividing up an article. But this is not such an important work of fiction as to warrant it. It's a matter of proportion. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unsourced, only fancruftish in-universe plot summary, no apparent notability for this aspect of the fiction. Sandstein 10:45, 28 April 2012 (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.