Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high fantasy works

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[edit]

(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:

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 list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep High Fantasy is a relatively well defined genre, and there's nothing about the nom's complaint that couldn't be remedied by trimming inappropriate entries--i.e., those not termed high fantasy by an RS. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that it is not "relatively well defined" as there seem to be two competing definitions that are wholly different. As explained in the low fantasy article, one definition is that it takes place in a different world and the other is that it has a mythic scope. The two definitions conflict making it unsuitable for a solidly defined list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:29, 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 List of fantasy books and a list of fantasy films and TV series, but sourcing in any more detail will be difficult. I cannot find any reliable sources that list high or low fantasy works. For what it's worth, I think these articles could just be deleted per 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 (bark • sniff) 19:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added video games and anime and manga wikiprojects since the examples provided are from those groups. But yes, Naruto and Mario could be classified as high fantasy since they take place in fictional worlds. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could be classified" - maybe. But I don't think anyone has ever classified them as such._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Passerby editors do on occasion, with the Mario, Sonic, and Zelda type games I mainstain, but its something we generally remove in clean up efforts, as its not usually how the video game industry labels them, even if it may technically be pretty similar to the definition. For what its worth. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not about whether editors call them that, because that is WP:OR. If any reliable sources have called them that, then that is different._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I know that. You said anyone, and I was explaining on how WikiProject members have handled it in the past. I'm not arguing against you. I'm currently undecided on whether or not its too WP:INDISCRIMINATE of a list topic or not, so I was just giving you some background on the subject for now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Controversial statements should either be sourced to a reliable source or not be included. Either way, this is not relevant for the deletion discussion. ~Mable (chat) 23:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as there are sufficient inclusion rules, which should be at minimum: the work is blue-linked as a standalone article, and that there are at least one reliable source calling it "high fantasy", then the list is fine. --Masem (t) 22:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are multiple List of high fantasy articles: High Fantasy itself with the huge infobox, List of high fantasy fiction, List of high fantasy works, 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 (bark • sniff) 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 (bark • sniff) 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]

Delete - Because no objective criteria exists, this is impermissible original research, verging on fancruft. --Rpclod (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At least two other editors have pointed out that an RS calling a work a high fantasy is an appropriate inclusion criterion. Few things in Wikipedia lists are truly objective; going by what RS'es call something is more the norm than the exception. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of high fantasy fiction, which has existed at that title for over 12 years. Merging isn't necessary since nothing is sourced. List of low fantasy works can redirect to Low fantasy, which already has a mostly sourced list. It can be split out later if the article gets overly long, which is not the case at present. —Xezbeth (talk) 17:34, 9 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 (bark • sniff) 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]

REDIRECT to List of high fantasy fiction. Per WP:FORK we should not have two lists covering the same territory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that List of high fantasy works, List of low fantasy works were created on 25 December 2017. List of high fantasy films and TV series was created in 2013 with the original intent of contrasting List of high fantasy fiction which has been around since 2005. The examples list infobox for High Fantasy was created on 8 June 2017. Low fantasy's examples list, which is in the main article as a section, was developed around 2013. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 22 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 (bark • sniff) 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.