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. The argument that this content is WP:OR is compelling, and not successfully rebutted. Creating a similar article that is based on reliable sources is however possible. Sandstein 06:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Types of mythological or fantastic beings in contemporary fiction[edit]

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

Unsourced for two years, comprised of original research. Proper sourcing is not possible, as the topic is by design "monsters that are similar to other monsters in other works of fiction". Bright☀ 14:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete this festival of fannish OR. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations provided to similar cross-comparisons in reliable sources that would demonstrate notability under WP:NOTESAL. (Will change !vote if such citations are added.) —chaos5023 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft listing that compares franchises and book series, all of which is original research and not of encyclopedic value. No reliable source news articles that attempt to juxtapose the franchises' monster lists on a large scale. For a similar discussion see Talk:K-pop#RfC:_.22Is_a_most_viewed_list_from_several_sources_acceptable.3F.22 AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC) updated 14:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, the article is full of synthesis and OR. I am not aware of ay reliable sources that discuss all these varied fictional series along all of these parameters. Once synth and OR were deleted, there is nothing left. Whilst I appreciate the work that went into this table, it is just not up to Wikipedia verification requirements. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks more like someone's private research project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The very first source that I found when checking this out was this whole academic book about the subject from a reliable publisher. Notability is a function of the article subject, not of the current state of an article. The previous comments all seem to be based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no indication that any attempt has been made to find sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. That book starts right in about Moby Dick, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the fantasy creatures listed in this article. And the table of contents also has little or nothing to do with the article, devoting chapters to King Kong, the Island of Dr Moreau, and cryptozoology. Seems to me you judged the book by its title. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And it seemed that you judged this article by its current contents rather than its topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Monsters in contemporary fiction" is a source-able and notable topic, "monsters that are similar to each other in contemporary fiction" is an un-source-able topic that is necessarily synthesis. Bright☀ 19:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Darned right I judged the article by its content. That's all we have to go on now. If the content is to be entirely replaced to follow what reliable sources say, then that's the same as deleting it and starting over. Therefore, my point still stands. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOR, WP:FANCRUFT and not well sourced synthesis. Ajf773 (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Per my comment above: The only reliable source even mentioned so far has nothing to do with this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, notability is an attribute of a subject, not of an article as it is currently written. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the content has anything to do with the notable subject. In this case, it doesn't. Therefore, it needs to be rewritten completely, which is the same as deleting and starting over. Once it is deleted, nothing prevents anyone from starting a new article about the subject that's actually notable. Simply titling an article after a notable subject doesn't mean it should be kept. The content matters. If we just keep the article title, it's no better than a placeholder. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a placeholder, but a stub, which is the usual start for an article about a notable topic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A stub needs to have content to avoid speedy deletion. You would have to replace the present content entirely with something else. There is nothing preventing anyone, including you, from creating such a stub once it is deleted. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 86.17.222.157's argument that it's the subject matter and not the article which determines notability - a salient policy point which I hope the AfD closer will take under advisement. There's absolutely no doubt that the article itself is in terrible condition, but the majority of the fictional universes included here have been written about fairly extensively, so I would think that the material - which at this point is almost totally unreferenced - is referencable. I'd suggest that the creator and major editors of the article be told that they have a set amount of time -- say a year -- to get the referencing up to snuff, and if it hasn't been done by that time, it can be brought back to AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen no evidence yet that the subject (a list of fantasy works cross-referenced with the creatures therein) is a notable subject at all. Even the one reference the IP address mentioned above isn't about that, the book is about the evolution of an entirely different genre of creatures in literature. Just because a mere title sounds notable doesn't mean that it is. Just because you believe it's notable doesn't mean that it is. Come up with some evidence. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you seem to be agreeing with the creators of this article in defining the subject by its current content. The subject is defined by the title, and the book that I cited clearly has significant reliable coverage of types of fantastic beings in contemporary fiction. That is as long as "contemporary" is defined from the viewpoint of an old man like me rather that of many Wikipedia editors for whom 1999 is a lifetime away. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you don't seem to understand that article titles without any content cannot be kept on Wikipedia. The content is what matters here. If you replace the content completely with other content, that's no different from deleting the article and creating a new one. Once again you haven't offered a policy-based reason to keep this. (And by the way, 1999 feels like a very short time ago to me, to give you perspective on my age.) ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely arbitrary list that randomly groups certain things while ignoring others. A "complete" list would be the largest article on this site, yet would have no value. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it needs secondary sources discussing/comparing the "ecology" or "bestiaries" of different fantasy worlds. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the problem. Do you know of such sources? If they cannot be found, then this article cannot be kept. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but it needs work. It could be used for navigation: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." (WP:LISTN) I added Stargate with links to specific creatures. The scope of the article needs to be improved: what is classic (include "gothic"?), which settings (franchises/multiple media, equivalent to 20? books/10? movies/100? episodes), which types (10? max, generalized). I would say inclusion of a setting needs at least 3? columns/articles to link to in the table. Sources could be added to column or row headers or individual cells. These beings tie in with Jungian archetypes, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, The Seven Basic Plots,.... StrayBolt (talk) 19:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing where the creatures are being compared across the various franchises and with a large-scale "does it have vampires? Werewolves? Fairies? Medusas?" kind of treatment. Yes, you can find sources that show a certain monster type is in the film but so what? The individual types of monsters are comparable like with the vampires, as there are books on vampire fiction, but not collections like this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per all above(and Anchronist).The closer may be reminded that argument in the likes of --There exists sources...., without any evidence is in it's essentiality a null vote.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:12, 20 September 2017 (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.