Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Redwall species (2nd nomination)

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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall species

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

Per the last AFD, decision was made to renominate this list separately. The information is all in-universe and unsourced, and most of it is reliant on sub-articles that were deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Characteristics of the species are listed. Are these characteristics ever explicitly stated anywhere authoritative? If they are, than this seems like a proper encyclopedic list that just needs sourcing and some clean-up. If not, however, I doubt we'd have enough information left for a list once they were removed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing authoritative in a quick search, but we all know how bad my Google-fu is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regretfully, because I put in quite a lot of work on the article back a couple years ago and while I was active tried to keep it free of plotcruft. But the article is essentially all plotcruft, and with little chance of finding reliable secondary sources on it being that it's a series for young teenagers and received very little critical attention. There was one interview with author Brian Jacques where he discussed the species he included, but I couldn't find it. Honestly I didn't look very hard for it, but at any rate one reliable source wouldn't justify this massive article anyhow and could be used to source the paragraph in the main Redwall article just as well. Mc JEFF ^(talk) 04:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced in-universe list composed exclusively of fancruft. With all regret but this is not what our project is for. --John (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In-universe fancruft based on OR with no sourcing provided, and little chance that any reliable sourcing exists. The list has no encyclopedic value in it's current state, and the prospects of it being improved to the point of being useful are vanishingly small. McJeff made a good point when he said that teen series such as this receive little independent critical assesment, and that's why independent sourcing is unlikely to be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2011 (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.