Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (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 keep. Sandstein 09:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional counties (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)

Mostly WP:OR fictional cruft. The vast majority of the list entries are non-notable and don't have their own article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• List entries do not need to be individually notable. In this case, the media in which each of these counties is featured is notable. bd2412 T 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Counties like Borsetshire are quite famous and it's easy to find substantial sources like Faulkner's County: The Historical Roots of Yoknapatawpha. Andrew D. (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. List-items do not need to be individually notable; having a list-article actually helps to head off creation of separate articles about marginal topics. This list-article seems like an excellent reference, a good use of Wikipedia. --Doncram (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional towns and villages (2nd nomination), where I also vote "Keep" for same reasoning. --Doncram (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - agree with Andrew D. Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fictional places obviously satisfy LISTN. There is little or no original research: an extant work of fiction is a reliable source for its own contents. We have never required list entries to be notable: see eg WP:POKEMON. James500 (talk) 02:44, 5 July 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.