Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dragons in film and television

: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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[List of dragons in film and television]]=

:{{la|List of dragons in film and television}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dragons in film and television}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|List of dragons in film and television}})

WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:IINFO CTJF83 chat 05:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved this material from List of fictional dragons because others had flagged that article as long and unwieldy and suggested splitting it into shorter articles. I do not vouch for the content which I merely moved. On the other hand, it is possible that an orderly list of dragons in film/television has encyclopedic value for purposes of comparative study. That is certainly one of the values of List of dragons in literature.

Amccune (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete pretty much per nom. Because the topic of this list is so broad, it naturally leads to subjects within it that have no encyclopedic relationship with each other. WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO apply here. Them From Space 06:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep As explained above, the list has been split from a larger list. If we decide to keep the information together then this is best reversed by redirection, not deletion as the article's title is a plausible search term. Please see our deletion policy and editing policy in which exploration of such alternatives to deletion is recommended. Deletion is a last resort, not the first option to reach for. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Since lists are accepted on WP. There is nothing especially wrong with the list. If a person wanted to learn more about dragons in popular entertainment he/she could wade through it and check out some of the articles. An attempt to "improve" it by limiting it to the more important dragons or those who are featured in more high quality works would involve original research and lead to a lot of waste of time and energy in disputes. Better for those not interested in the topic to ignore it. (Creatures who look like dragons but are not should be removed.)(Most of the entries have their own articles which make it clear that a dragon is involved, so no need for a footnote for each)Steve Dufour (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep Highly appropriate list article. If it contains only those relevant to Wikipedia articles it is not indiscriminate, but as discriminating as anything in the encyclopedia. It would not be a directory unless it included every possible one--they two rules are in this case just the same, and the article clearly passes them. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep and render usable by focusing on films and TV shows which strongly feature dragons rather than listing every trivial instance of a dragon character, some of which are so minor they're not even named. Someone another 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.