568:. Only one element of this list has a reference. It seems odd to me that this article has existed for so long, and had such extensive work to it done by numerous editors, yet no one has been able to find sources. If you got rid of all the red-linked and non-linked elements in this list, you'd be left with a pretty sad looking article. Why is that important? Because red-linked and non-linked elements mean that they're likely not notable. So, can we jump to the conclusion that this list is a collection of mostly non-notable things? I think it would be safe to say yes.
744:- it is the work of but a moment to copy a source from the article to the list if that's what's needed, and that's a lot more constructive than just labeling the whole list "unsourced" and calling for its deletion. (Oh, and I'm not making a general claim that "an unsourced Knowledge (XXG) page is fine as long as it links to ones that are" - I'm talking specifically of lists, and if you look around you'll find many many lists that are not fully independently sourced, but link to sourced articles) --
1008:. The argument that the list is indiscriminate is invalid; fictional pandas are numerous but not too numerous, and are easy to define. If there are problems with non-notable and/or unsourced fictional pandas in the list, that can be fixed by editing them out. The claim that pandas are appealing to consumers of animation and other media is true, and doubtless sources exist to back up this claim.
886:. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--
842:
of those characters. The rest are links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, redirect to character lists or works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree that this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the
622:
This, like the other articles of this sort, are appropriate encyclopedic content. How is it too broad? If the items in it are significant figures in notable works, it's properly inclusive, not at all excessive. Lists in general are good navigational content, and we should not remove them if they
470:
is a perfectly suitable place to discuss it. I'm not actually challenging anyone's "competence and good sense". Well respected and productive editors have produced articles which have been deleted. I'm simply questioning whether there's a consensus to keep this on
Knowledge (XXG). Let's be calm and
692:
The list may be badly sourced, but is not unsourced - it contains a number of of links to other
Knowledge (XXG) articles which provide their own sourcing. A lot of the entries are unsourced, yes, and the unsourced entries should either be sourced or removed - but that's not a reason to delete the
339:
It's nothing to do with a "hatred of fictional topics", it's to do with the fact that this list can never be adequately complete, has no genuine inclusion criteria, contains content which may well be unverifiable or original research. The asteroid list is an encyclopaedic list which has inclusion
646:
It's not completely unsourced - it links to a number of
Knowledge (XXG) articles which have their own sources. I do agree it is poorly sourced, as there are many with no such article, but I'm sure finding sources for most of the entries wouldn't be hard - and better than deleting the whole list.
199:. Completely unreferenced, some of the pandas listed aren't even linked to the work they appear in. The fact that no attempt to reference the list or otherwise substantially improve it since the last AFD (ended in no consensus) indicates that deletion would be appropriate.
288:'s advice, that we make this into a category instead. It's obviously not completable, so category is the preferred choice. No objection to keeping it if someone wants to trim all the entries without articles and source whatever's left, but that's a lot of work.
310:. Citations are only required for information that is controversial or disputed. The reason that this list has been nominated seems to be the usual hatred of fictional topics. This is a systemic bias which we don't see applied to other lists such as
784:
and you can't stitch together any random group of things you find interesting. Not an encyclopedic group because there are no secondary sources that talk about this grouping. Despite claims for potential, there are no sources because none exist. Fails
322:
and so a navigational list is quite sensible. If there's some particular entry which seems incorrect then please point it out or remove it. Deletion of the whole is excessive - a lazy way of avoiding the chore of doing actual editing.
707:
Most of the entries are either redlinks or no link at all, and I reject the idea that an unsourced
Knowledge (XXG) page is fine as long as it links to ones that are. That just seems like a great way to pile the encyclopedia full of
1052:
988:
160:
398:. Perhaps the nominator can tell us what work he has done as we see no signs of his activity on the article's talk page or in its edit history. AFD is not cleanup nor a way of extorting work from other editors.
940:. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.).
672:. You don't make lists just because you like to make lists. If a list is unsourced, as this is, it should at least perform some sort of useful navigational function- and this doesn't. Useless clutter.
234:
416:
Warden, thanks for informing me about the error in my nomination. I meant WP:NOTDIR - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or
536:
154:
115:
394:
Absurd nomination as the list is obviously neither indiscriminate nor a sales catalog. The nomination complains that no work has been done. This is the poor argument of
539:
explains at length that categories do not supersede lists; that these methods of navigation are complementary; and that we should not delete one to favour the other.
596:) to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. The result is nothing but a directory listing of every fictional character our editors can think of.
260:
878:
as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than
Knowledge (XXG), as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes
120:
362:
88:
83:
948:
link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list.
92:
215:
WP has many of the same type of lists. No reason to single this one out, it does no harm. If someone is not interested in fictional pandas then skip it.
438:
The article in question has been edited by numerous editors. In proposing this for deletion, you are challenging their competence and good sense. Per
75:
420:" should be deleted - I think this extends to lists of animals. Please be civil and assume good faith in AFDs, or I may have to take this issue to
306:
The work involved is trivial, as I have demonstrated by sourcing the first entry. The reason it doesn't get done is that it is largely pointless
944:
When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See
311:
895:
608:
369:— then how are we to tell whether they are loosely associated or not? The list before us seems as well defined as these, if not better.
623:
might be helpful. It's not a directory--if we started looking for minor or background characters, we could find a great many more--but
175:
736:
I agree that unlinked or relinked entries should either be sourced or removed, but list entries that link to sourced articles are not
366:
142:
17:
462:
It's a central principal of
Knowledge (XXG) to assume good faith. I'm trying to improve the wiki by the discussion of what I see as
284:
If the list was partially sourced, I'd say keep it. It's entirely unsourced at this point, which suggests, along the lines of
866:
749:
698:
652:
136:
79:
1064:
1043:
1017:
1000:
979:
910:
speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional pandas? It is clearly
898:
870:
802:
772:
753:
731:
702:
687:
656:
638:
614:
584:
548:
526:
503:
478:
455:
431:
407:
378:
332:
297:
275:
249:
224:
206:
57:
1079:
1013:
36:
132:
1009:
781:
182:
1078:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1021:
745:
694:
648:
544:
451:
442:, we may likewise challenge the quality of the nomination and the due diligence which has preceded it, per the
403:
374:
328:
71:
63:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
446:. If you do not care to have your handiwork inspected and and criticised then please do not submit it here.
344:- "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or
891:
798:
603:
463:
1025:
794:
767:- Save the Pandas - sometime ago someone tried to delete this article. That Pandacidal Plot was foiled.
395:
831:
148:
996:
580:
319:
53:
511:
per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR.Other such lists should be deleted too. This is what categories are for.
1038:
540:
447:
399:
370:
324:
168:
883:
844:
665:
565:
443:
341:
196:
1060:
977:
887:
862:
818:
because a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. (
598:
499:
475:
428:
293:
220:
203:
923:
919:
819:
815:
741:
713:
669:
593:
561:
439:
192:
945:
271:
245:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
839:
358:
519:
958:
879:
852:
848:
811:
592:
This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per
467:
285:
992:
951:
569:
49:
737:
709:
421:
1030:
957:
The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such
724:
680:
908:
a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value
790:
786:
1056:
966:
857:
827:
634:
495:
472:
425:
289:
216:
200:
768:
267:
241:
838:
that have stand-alone articles about the characters. And that's not assessing the
109:
513:
1053:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination)
823:
315:
835:
717:
673:
307:
855:
doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned. —
629:
340:
criteria, and has been completed. I would strongly suggest that you read
1055:. There is no consensus to delete, though improvement seems needed.--
880:
the prohibition on using
Knowledge (XXG) to publish original research
936:
Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value,
348:" should be deleted. Can you find a policy which contradicts that ?
494:
Better sourcing would be valuable, but none-the-less a useful list
942:
This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories.
914:
indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly
357:" so vague as to be useless. If we consider the examples given in
1072:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
466:
and if I consider a list to be fundamentally unsuitable,
235:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
105:
101:
97:
822:) I've checked though the entries and found that only
167:
181:
954:, which is made up of specific categorical lists.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1082:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
363:List of Australians in international prisons
627:would be non-encyclopedic and a directory.
537:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
1020:would probably be worthy of deletion, but
261:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
255:
229:
259:: This debate has been included in the
233:: This debate has been included in the
922:: in any case I'd like to remind that
853:other lists exist with similar issues
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
938:unless they are split into sections
1018:List of fictional talking toasters
845:Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory
367:List of Belarusian Prime Ministers
24:
1014:List of fictional sassafras trees
930:a reason for deletion, but for
851:policy. Just because there are
312:List of asteroids/118101–118200
1:
314:. A fictional panda such as
740:, and it does not make them
1010:List of fictional musk oxen
418:persons (real or fictional)
346:persons (real or fictional)
1099:
816:indiscriminate information
1065:15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
1044:23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
1024:would worth keeping. See
1001:20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
980:17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
899:08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
871:16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
803:15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
773:16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
754:22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
732:22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
703:08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
688:22:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
657:17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
639:04:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
615:09:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
585:01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
549:16:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
527:15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
504:13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
479:16:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
456:16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
432:12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
408:10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
379:16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
333:10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
318:is far more notable than
298:00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
276:23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
250:23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
225:21:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
207:21:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
58:19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
1075:Please do not modify it.
1022:List of fictional tigers
72:List of fictional pandas
64:List of fictional pandas
32:Please do not modify it.
1051:per same commentary at
471:discuss this sensibly.
934:: the guideline says:
1026:Charismatic megafauna
963:asks us not to delete
746:Boing! said Zebedee
695:Boing! said Zebedee
649:Boing! said Zebedee
950:For reference see
882:as illustrated by
355:loosely associated
44:The result was
918:as broad to fail
906:. Arguments like
710:original research
583:
524:
278:
264:
252:
238:
191:List which fails
1090:
1077:
1042:
1035:
987:per my comments
975:
969:
832:Takemitsu SeiRyu
722:
678:
611:
606:
601:
579:
577:
576:
573:
525:
522:
518:
265:
239:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1080:deletion review
1073:
1031:
1029:
973:
972:
967:
952:Lists of people
780:- wikipedia is
742:useless clutter
728:
718:
714:useless clutter
684:
674:
609:
604:
599:
574:
571:
570:
520:
512:
320:asteroid 118101
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1096:
1094:
1085:
1084:
1068:
1067:
1046:
1003:
982:
970:
932:reorganization
901:
873:
805:
775:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
726:
693:whole article
682:
659:
641:
617:
587:
554:
553:
552:
551:
541:Colonel Warden
535:The guideline
530:
529:
506:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
459:
458:
448:Colonel Warden
444:proper process
411:
410:
400:Colonel Warden
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
371:Colonel Warden
336:
335:
325:Colonel Warden
301:
300:
279:
253:
227:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1095:
1083:
1081:
1076:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1034:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
983:
981:
978:
976:
964:
962:
956:
955:
953:
947:
943:
939:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
902:
900:
897:
893:
889:
888:Gavin Collins
885:
881:
877:
874:
872:
868:
864:
860:
859:
854:
850:
846:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:Lord Noriyuki
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
804:
800:
796:
795:Shooterwalker
792:
788:
783:
779:
776:
774:
771:, aka Erudil
770:
766:
763:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
730:
729:
723:
721:
715:
711:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
691:
690:
689:
686:
685:
679:
677:
671:
667:
663:
660:
658:
654:
650:
645:
642:
640:
636:
632:
631:
626:
621:
618:
616:
613:
612:
607:
602:
595:
591:
588:
586:
582:
578:
567:
563:
559:
556:
555:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
531:
528:
523:
517:
516:
510:
507:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
489:
480:
477:
474:
469:
465:
461:
460:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
352:
351:
350:
349:
347:
343:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
303:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
277:
273:
269:
262:
258:
254:
251:
247:
243:
236:
232:
228:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
205:
202:
198:
194:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1074:
1071:
1048:
1032:
1005:
984:
960:
949:
941:
937:
935:
931:
927:
915:
911:
907:
903:
875:
856:
807:
782:NOTDIRECTORY
777:
764:
725:
719:
681:
675:
661:
643:
628:
624:
619:
597:
589:
557:
514:
508:
491:
417:
391:
354:
345:
281:
256:
230:
212:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
396:WP:NOEFFORT
155:free images
993:Mike Cline
840:notability
824:Andy Panda
424:. Thanks.
353:The term "
316:Andy Panda
50:Courcelles
1039:reasoning
1033:Abductive
959:deletion
896:contribs)
884:WP:MADEUP
836:Tarepanda
666:WP:NOTDIR
566:WP:NOTDIR
464:listcruft
342:WP:NOTDIR
308:busy work
268:• Gene93k
242:• Gene93k
197:WP:NOTDIR
1057:Milowent
946:new list
924:WP:SALAT
920:WP:SALAT
820:WP:SALAT
670:WP:IINFO
594:WP:SALAT
562:WP:IINFO
496:Vartanza
473:Claritas
440:WP:SAUCE
426:Claritas
290:Jclemens
217:Wolfview
201:Claritas
193:WP:IINFO
116:View log
1006:Comment
847:of the
769:Das Baz
359:WP:LIST
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
961:policy
876:Delete
849:WP:NOT
834:, and
812:WP:NOT
810:Fails
808:Delete
778:Delete
662:Delete
590:Delete
572:Snotty
558:Delete
515:Verbal
509:Delete
468:WP:AFD
286:WP:CLN
282:Ehh...
133:Google
93:delete
928:never
858:Farix
738:WP:OR
635:talk
610:Space
422:WP:AN
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1061:talk
1049:Keep
1016:and
997:talk
989:Here
985:Keep
968:Cycl
965:. --
904:Keep
892:talk
799:talk
791:WP:V
789:and
787:WP:N
765:Keep
750:talk
720:Reyk
712:and
699:talk
676:Reyk
668:and
664:per
653:talk
644:Keep
625:that
620:Keep
605:From
600:Them
581:talk
575:Wong
564:and
560:per
545:talk
521:chat
500:talk
492:Keep
452:talk
404:talk
392:Keep
375:talk
329:talk
294:talk
272:talk
257:Note
246:talk
231:Note
221:talk
213:Keep
195:and
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
974:pia
926:is
916:not
912:not
814:as
727:YO!
683:YO!
630:DGG
365:or
266:--
240:--
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1063:)
1028:.
1012:,
999:)
991:--
869:)
865:|
830:,
826:,
801:)
793:.
752:)
716:.
701:)
655:)
637:)
547:)
502:)
454:)
406:)
377:)
361:—
331:)
296:)
274:)
263:.
248:)
237:.
223:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
1059:(
1041:)
1037:(
995:(
971:o
894:|
890:(
867:c
863:t
861:(
797:(
748:(
697:(
651:(
633:(
543:(
498:(
476:§
450:(
429:§
402:(
373:(
327:(
292:(
270:(
244:(
219:(
204:§
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.