Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organisms named after works of fiction

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.

List of organisms named after works of fiction

List of organisms named after works of fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The list is kind of cool, but nothing in it, nor in my BEFORE, suggests it meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Biology, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though this is a complex categorization of sorts, I confirmed it still meets the full criteria of
  WP:NLIST
  . A non-exhaustive Google-websearch-only search brings up enough coverage. I didn't check ProQuest, Google Books, or the internet archive.
  1. Smithsonian Magazine [1]
  2. Natural History Museum (London) [2]
  3. Gizmodo [3]
  4. CNET (pre-2020, so reliable) [4]
  5. The Science Times with a focus on Sauron [5]
  6. Comicbook.com, focuses on Star Wars, which is a sublist of this list [6]

I also note that the list is exceedingly well referenced to reliable sources. For what it's worth, there's even more coverage for List of organisms named after famous people (born 1950–present) —siroχo 06:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Siroxo Thank you. Can you add those sources to tha article's lead? I'll withdraw this nom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list is completely arbitrary, and therefore falls under
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE as unfit for Wikipedia. The organisms within have no unifying factor beyond having a name that resembles a work of fiction or character therein. It would be just as arbitrary as a list like "List of cars with chrome hubcaps" or "List of cities with spherical buildings". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I wrote this article because I was inspired by List of organisms named after the Harry Potter series and List of things named after J. R. R. Tolkien and his works. As far as I know, those articles haven't been nominated for deletion since they were made in 2018 and 2016; why would this article be any different? If we need a "unifying factor", perhaps the article could be split into multiple articles: List of organisms named after works of literature, List of organisms named after films, etc.? LegoK9 (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also think this list is kind of cool, and am happy to see that there are sources which show that there is interest beyond Wikipedia editors on this topic, allowing to write a referenced lead and fullfill
  WP:LISTN. Also related to this is this paper, "Taxonomic punchlines: metadata in biology". It shows academic interest in the parent topic, organisms with "whimsical names", even though I personally find that harder to delineate than "named after works of fiction". Another source is Die Kunst der Bennenung, where unfortunately the relevant pages are only partially available. What is visible is a three-quarters-of-a-page treatment of organisms named after elements from Lord of the Rings as part of a larger discussion. An especially good source on the topic is this Polish paper, Inspiracje i osobliwości naukowego nazewnictwa zoologicznego: Especially pages 47-49 talk about our topic here, and in an almost list-like manner, too. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep per the sources and comments of other commenters. May be willing to change votes depending on how discussion goes, but for now it seems to be an alright article. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I understand hesitation towards "fun" Wikipedia articles (I agree Wikipedia should not put "entertainment" as a high priority), this list is also useful and does serve a purpose, as there's no shortage of legitimate academic studies (and simple layperson interest) regarding how we as people interact with pop culture, including in things like science and public policy. List of unusual deaths is another example of a "fun" list that also serves a legitimate purpose in... listing unusual deaths in one location. Both lists also have the privilege of being well-made and well sourced. A MINOTAUR (talk) 19:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This clearly meets
  WP:LISTN, as a subject discussed in reliable sources in itself. Also, very well-referenced. BD2412 T 20:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, though I think this would be a lot better as a
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE as this is indeed a very common practice. TompaDompa (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdraw. Sources found by Siroxo show that NLIST is met. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 25 August 2023 (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.