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. Mainly per the notability concerns as they have not been addressed and constitute a valid deletion argument. That other similar pages have not been nominated for deletion is not a reason to keep this one; if someone wants to get rid of the other pages as well send 'em to AFD. I see the arguments that such a list would be useful in some places but that alone does not override the notability concerns; if people want to merge or export the list you can ask at WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of civilisations in the Culture series[edit]

List of civilisations in the Culture series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Pretty much entirely in-universe fancruft. Fails WP:GNG as it does not demonstrate standalone notability as a list. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete this looks like something better suited for Fandom, though I could be convinced otherwise if someone presents sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This data collection doesn't exist anywhere else and contributes greatly to research on the books and topics. Timmccloud (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... per Timmccloud. It "doesn't exist anywhere else" and it's WP:USEFUL. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - there are some fairly detailed articles on The Culture in the encyclopaedia, and this is an extension of those. As it stands, the information is too detailed to fit easily into another Culture article. What bothers me is that it seems overly detailed and somewhat light on references. Possibly more of a problem: it smacks of the dreaded original research - it's an impressive collection of information about these civilizations and it is certainly of value, yet Wikipedia's own policies discourage this sort of article. On balance though I think it should stay. Shritwod (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- this is overly detailed, poorly sourced plot summary. Due to the poor state of the sourcing, there isn't any good content that could be merged anywhere. Reyk _YO! 09:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep. There are at least 10 other similar Culture-related stub or primary-sourced "cruft" articles (that number from the navbox alone) and this isn't even the worst-in-shape article. There is no logical reason why this article only should be deleted and the others left. Therefore I suggest that this nomination be dropped and that these substantially identical articles be nominated together at once so as to consistently apply the notability and sourcing policies, to bring attention to all of them and allow proponents to find sources and perform clean-up work, and to decide whether they should collectively be merged or deleted. 144.134.2.40 (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is merely a thinly veiled WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I prefer to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK by nominating things separately. There is enough controversy as it is over this one article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen this game before. Nominate them singly, and people demand a bundled nom. Give them a bundled nom and it's all "Speedy keep- one of these ten crappy cookie-cutter articles wasn't cut out with the same cookie-cutter. That invalidates the whole nom. NPASR." So you then nominate them singly again. "Nooooooo, speedy keep, NOTAGAIN, this was just nominated last week REEEEEEE". Reyk _YO! 12:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith. 2001:8003:70C0:7501:2F4:8DFF:FEB3:2DE9 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I never expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, only that it makes no sense to focus on this single article when it is part of a collection, and that they should be nominated together. If you intend to go through and tag all of the other articles sequentially then that is fine, but I don't know why you wouldn't do it at once. 2001:8003:70C0:7501:2F4:8DFF:FEB3:2DE9 (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Clarityfiend and Reyk. Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 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.