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.
This is a list of random examples with only unsourced information or primary information. Maybe an article about the overall concept of ecological resistance in fiction could be notable and discriminate. But creating this topic as a list is
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fundamentally cannot meet
WP:LISTN or
WP:GNG, due to it being a vaguely defined plot device (list includes anyone who vaguely battles for or against the environment), and due to a lack of sources describing this concept in direct detail.
Jontesta (
talk)
19:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Definitely agree on the possible potential of a prose article, but this list can be TNT’d without anything being lost.
TTN (
talk)
20:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I'd say the stub state of the prose version of the article is a suitable enough alternative to let the topic build from there. It might be good to look into merging it somewhere should that end up being its maximum growth potential later on, but that can be handled at that time.
TTN (
talk)
01:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)reply
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question...
Delete per TTN. The list is vague and overbroad, and completely unsourced. Even if we were to add some sources, we would need to remove the
WP:INDISCRIMINATE list and effectively
start over from scratch. Would not object to this topic being re-created as an article about the concept, instead of an indiscriminate list.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
02:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep - In its current, revised state. When I initially saw this AFD yesterday, my initial thought was the same as the Nom. While the actual topic was probably notable, the fact that the current article was completely comprised of unsourced information meant that it should not be kept due to simple reasons of
WP:V - we simply cannot keep unsourced information on the encyclopedia. However, it seems that since then,
User:TompaDompa has already begun the process of eliminating the unsourced information and replacing it with examples described in reliable, secondary material. In this state, it is perfectly acceptable, and serves as the foundation for the more comprehensive article on the topic suggested by even the current Delete votes.
Rorshacma (
talk)
16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Listing works of fiction wherein a particular plot point appears is what
TV Tropes does. I agree with the nominator and those arguing in favour of deletion that the list was
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, though the topic is suitable for a prose article. To this end, I have edited the article such that instead of looking like this, it looks like this instead. Since these two versions are not in any meaningful way the same article—though they both share the title
Eco-terrorism in fiction—this is effectively the same thing as a
WP:TNT delete and do-over from scratch (except the edit history hasn't been deleted); the current prose article is to the previous list article as
Climate of London is to
List of rainy days in London. I think this should be a satisfactory solution to all involved based on the comments so far. Pinging @
Jontesta,
TTN,
Shooterwalker, and
LaundryPizza03: would you care to weigh in on this?
TompaDompa (
talk)
23:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: Thank you for editing and for understanding the issues here. The difference between
Climate of London and
List of rainy days in London gets at the standard we should apply here. One is a encyclopedic article and the other is a list of arbitrary
original research. I'm hesitant to call a
WP:TNT during an AFD satisfactory, because it's very easy for people to ignore consensus and revert this the moment that no one is looking. But that's not a slight against you personally and I want to
assume good faith of other editors out there so that we can move forward. The new article does have a better scope now and we won't have any issues if it stays that way as it expands. I'd ask that the closing admin note that there is a consensus to rewrite this, even if the rewrite has already been done. (Or if you're fine with that I'll close it myself.)
Jontesta (
talk)
01:26, 27 November 2020 (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.