Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high fantasy works

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 redirect to List of high fantasy fiction. I don't see a similar list for low fantasy works, will leave List of low fantasy works as no consensus with the encouragement of any interested parties to discuss on the talk page an appropriate redirect target. J04n(talk page) 16:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of high fantasy works

List of high fantasy works (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)

I am also nominating the following related pages because their content is similar:

List of high fantasy films and TV series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
List of low fantasy works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The membership of the list is relatively indiscriminate, with the vast majority never having been referred to as high fantasy in a reliable source. Entirely

WP:OR listcruft. Super Mario Bros and Naruto are high fantasy? I think not...ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the
missfortune 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Conditional keep. Absolutely every entry on this list should have a reference, and a direct reference from a reliable, non-primary source that calls the entry "high fantasy" (or, for the low fantasy list, "low fantasy"), not merely a description that a Wikipedia editor thinks is high-fantasyish. Ideally two references, since that way one loony critic can only do so much damage (and if two, then a primary source might be acceptable as a "back-up"). Move all the other entries to the talk page or a subpage. (If this is not done, then delete.) SnowFire (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing that there's been no change, I propose these articles be redirected to low fantasy and high fantasy. If someone ever wants to start again, they can dig up the current info from the revision history. SnowFire (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove all unsourced entries in each of these lists. Then we may want to merge "low" and "high" fantasy and create these lists based on medium instead. I can imagine sourcing a
    WP:TNT. ~Mable (chat) 17:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to High fantasy and Low fantasy pages. High fantasy already has multiple lists of works articles, including a really long infobox of examples. Low fantasy's examples section is good enough to show concept. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except there are multiple List of high fantasy articles:
List of high fantasy films and TV series. This needs to be better organized. The "works" one overlaps with the fiction (most books) and film and TV articles. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
Wait, if there's already a "List of high fantasy fiction", then what's the difference between that topic and this one? Shouldn't all of these be merged? ~Mable (chat) 19:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hence the confusion. How many lists do people want of the same thing? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xezbeth: List of high fantasy fiction is also largely unsourced, has redlinks (mostly works by bluelinked authors, except for 2 authors who have bluelinked titles), and contains possible OR as of January 2015. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, which is why another unsourced list shouldn't be merged into it, but redirected. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having all the high fantasy redirects go to List of high fantasy fiction and having that list scrubbed with references, but does it need to be doubly listed as an infobox of examples on High fantasy as well? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen such an infobox before, and I certainly oppose to it being there. It seems like people really enjoy listing high fantasy works. ~Mable (chat) 18:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
It might warrant another discussion, perhaps at the talk page, but I also recommend deletion of the High Fantasy Examples box in High fantasy. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 19:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge the content to similar longer articles and ensure everything listed is also list ted there. Other wise delete. DoctorHver (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2018 (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.