Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unicorns

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. Consensus is against this article remaining. @BD2412: if you want to work on this in draft space (nor or down the road) feel free to ping me for it. No need to go through REFUND. I just don't want this to die a G13 if no one is able now. Star Mississippi 00:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of unicorns[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)

This "list of unicorns in modern popular culture, chiefly literature, film and television" is an INDISCRIMINATE collection of TRIVIA which doesn't meet standalone list notability standards. The article lacks citations, and contains no indication this list topic has ever been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources as required per NLIST. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) See also MOS:TRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 17:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Fictional elements. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way too undereferenced. WP:NOTTVTROPES, WP:IPC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I really, truly hate to defend thinly-sourced cruft like this article, but a handful of sources could be found: [1], [2], both of which cover unicorns in popular culture. This suggests the topic of the list has been discussed as a group. If kept, this article needs a LOT of work, and any unsourced entry (i.e. essentially all of them) should either be removed or given a proper secondary reference. If nobody is willing to do that, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of legendary proportions. LISTN per above. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge: this is just trivia. Contrary to @WeirdNAnnoyed, I don't think the subject would be supported by the sources they found. Those sources might justify an article called 'Unicorns in popular culture', but not a list of unicorns without anything else. I would say that some of this content could be moved to a new 'Unicorns in popular culture' section in the main Unicorn article. If the page is kept it should at least be moved to 'List of unicorns in popular culture'.

Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WeirdNAnnoyed and common sense (of course reliable sources have discussed unicorns as a group or set, as I'm sure have fictional horses). --Jfhutson (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course unicorns in general have been discussed, but unicorns in popular culture as a set? That is what this list is about. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per multi wp:not redirects Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just giving this discussion a bit more time. But I have no idea what "wp:not redirects" refers to as it doesn't correspond to a policy page/section, at least none I could find.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to see if this can possibly be sourced. BD2412 T 03:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the relisting comment: I'm fairly certain that "wp:not redirects" should be parsed as "WP:NOT redirects", which I reckon refers to the likes of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Could be wrong, of course. TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article about unicorns in popular culture could possibly exist, but this list is way too broad. Unicorns are way too common in fiction for a list like this to exist. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2024 (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.