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 all except the list.. v/r - TP 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Abbey leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over a year

Badger Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years, tagged for merge since January 2009

Badger Mother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years, tagged for merge since January 2009

Birds in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — tagged for merge since January 2009

Foremole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years

Log-a-Log (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years

Otters in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — tagged for merge since January 2009

Redwall Champion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shrew tribes in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced for over 3 years, tagged for merge since January 2009

Skipper of Otters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years

Martin the Warrior (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — tagged for overlong plot for 3 years, unsourced

Redwall Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years

Mossflower Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto

Salamandastron (Redwall) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto

Loamhedge Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto

Long Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — not even linked on the Redwall template

Minor badgers in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto

All of these articles are nothing but in-universe, unsourced content with way too much detail, no sources and no out-of-universe notability. There's little, if nothing, to merge. I fail to see any reason for ANY of this to have articles. Some merge proposals were brought up in 2009 but nothing came of them since apparently no one maintains the Redwall articles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whilst recognising the concern over sourcing, I see nothing about these Redwall articles that leads me to consider their deletion. Yes, there are issues about in-universe sourcing and lack of external commentary. However WP does do fiction, and it does it in a way that permits articles on fictional topics to rely (perhaps excessively) on in-novel sources (and let's not start on the superhero comics). If that's a problem though, it's a hell of a lot bigger one than just these Redwall articles. Work to change it if you want, but that should be done from the top, via Village Pump & fiction projects, not by trying to pick off the fanboys, story arc by story arc.

As to issues of poor sourcing including even in-universe sources, then that's just plain old clean up by editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, right? Just getting that straight. Tell me how it gets to bypass having literally zero out-of-universe notability, or how it gets to bypass having literally zero secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. One article is WP:OSE. The infamous past serious discussion about the need for a whole Pokemon namespace, or the absolutely rife in-universe issues for superheroes, isn't just WP:OSE or even a precedent, it's a whole community behaviour by consensus and a de facto policy. You might be right to start from scratch and say that this fictional stuff just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (mind you, good luck with that one), but singling out Redwall as if it was some unusual aberration to be stamped out ASAP is unreasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How the hell do you posit that I'm "singling out" Redwall? There are plenty of other unrelated fiction articles that are just as poorly written, and lacking in out-of-universe notability. I bundled these articles because they're closely related and all have the same issues, not because I'm on some anti-Redwall vendetta. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all except List of Redwall species - No evidence of notability other than that inherited from Redwall. If merged to a larger Redwall article, they would represent an inappropriate and unencyclopaedic level of detail. They should therefore be deleted, not merged. These issues do not necessarily affect the main list, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except List of Redwall species and nominate that one separately. I don't have any interest in debating notability and list policies (I got an email indicating that my talk page was changed which is why I'm "out of retirement" to post here), but the List of Species article is the one that is on the fence. If it was not bundled with the others they would all be quick and easy deletes. McJEFF ^(talk) 19:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Details that are far too minor for their own articles, and probably for inclusion in Redwall. Can't see any encyclopedic value in List of Redwall species, either. Sourcing is a major problem, as well. If the compiler would like to see this material placed on the internet, WP is not the place for it. Nothing is preventing them from creating their own website. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree completely with the fact that these articles have serious issues with sourcing, but that could be easily fixed, as all the sources would be in-universe fiction. Not having proper sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion. As for the comment that these articles have no "out-of-universe notability", well I suppose that is fair, but how is it any different from wikipedia articles about the worlds and/or characters in other notable fictional fantasy series, such as those for A Song of Ice and Fire (world, characters), The Wheel of Time (articles are too numerous to list), or The Sword of Truth (characters). You could even argue that many of the articles about The Lord of the Rings have no "out-of-universe notability". In summary, do the articles need work: yes. Should they be deleted: absolutely not. Runch (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. It comes down to an issue of Inherent Notability. My argument is that the Redwall series is just as notable as many of the other famous fictional fantasy series. Runch (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inherent notability does not apply to fictional fantasy series. There is an encyclopedic justification to including every high-school or every pope, for example, no matter how unnotable they may be by themselves, on the basis that they are a high school or a pope. There is not justification to include every fictional fantasy series jsut because it is a fictional fantasy series. You yourself agree to this when you use the word "famous", meaning that each series has to be notable on it's own merits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I misused the term "inherent notability" from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, but what we're arguing over is the notability of this series and whether it's notable on it's own merits, as you mentioned. I argue that it most certainly is. It has sold over 20 million copies, been translated into 29 languages, and spawned a television show as well as an opera. As Andy Dingley noted, you can argue that articles on fictional material do not deserve to be in an encyclopedia, but assuming that this sort of thing is included, Redwall is certainly notable enough to stay. Runch (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And again you're off-topic. The notability of the series itself is not at issue here, and no one is arguing that Redwall be deleted. The notability of minor details from the series is the question. And again, you seem to be appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All of the arguments you have made for "keep" are either off-topic or not relevant. A good point was brought up by DustFormsWords that they probably aren't even notable enough for inclusion in the main Redwall article because they "would represent an inappropriate and unencyclopaedic level of detail". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "an unencyclopaedic level of detail"

I dispute the existence of any such concept, certainly not according to policy. This is not a paper-based encyclopedia. We have no page count to stay within. If there is a wish to increase detail, we can simply extend that article to cover it. WP:UNDUE in particular doesn't oppose this. Firstly it's about neutrality, not detail. Secondly, the legitimate concerns about detail within an article relate to an excess of detail in relation to the overall scope of that article. There would indeed be issues about detail on the minor badgers within a broad article on Redwall, but the appropriate response to that for a wiki-based encyclopedia is to arrange that content into a separate article at Minor badgers in Redwall, as has rightly been done here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all unless referenced before this AFD closes; if there is anything that remains useful merge/redirect it into the appropriate list articles (List of Redwall characters, list of Redwall species, and World of Redwall). If someone actually manages to find references I'll give them a barnstar. I note that there is a Wikia for this kind of stuff - Redwall Wiki, which has 2,956 articles and is much better suited for fan content. Neutrality^talk 20:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rewrite. Make a central list that describes them in a way that does not go overboard with size. Try and find sources for at least some of the list to show a hint of notability. Your arguments of "they are fictional characters, thus notability doesn't apply" makes no sense. They still need coverage from third party reliable sources to show notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: None of these fictional species meets the general notability guideline as stand-alone topics and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, the content of their articles can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. Even List of Redwall species shows no notability as a list-topic and notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, so it should also be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The cited sourcing problems can all be resolved by ordinary editing, and the article spinouts are consistent with established practice toward treatment of complex multivolume fictional franchises of particular notable. This material would probably be better presented in combined form in more general articles, but that is an ordinary editing task. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all- stand-alone article are required to have reliable coverage in independent sources and there is no indication that any of these qualify. Merging them would also be inappropriate because it's a bad idea to deal with sourceless cruft by shuffling it from place to place. Reyk _YO! 00:10, 19 October 2011 (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.