Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional rebellions

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. Tone 18:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional rebellions (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)

An unsourced list that fails WP:LISTN and is entirely WP:OR. It also mostly focuses on modern pop-culture without mentioning things from most past fiction/film, which is evidence that there wasn't much attention paid to which ones actually merited a mention. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless sources can be found discussing the list as a group (I have looked, and apart from some click-bait lists there is nothing). As it stands, it appears to be some OR cobbled together because it's WP:INTERESTING. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's easy to find sources so it passes WP:LISTN. For example: 5 great rebels in literature, Female Rebellion in Young Adult Dystopian Fiction and Revolution, Rebellion, Resistance: The Power of Story. Andrew D. (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Typical Davidson horseshit. Third source isn't about fictional rebellions, first and second sources are more along the lines of disobedient or rebellious individuals than actual military revolutions. Why is this guy still tolerated here? He's been at this chicanery for years. 124.188.89.110 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some of the entries have their own articles dedicated to them, while others have content in their main articles. This list article has enough blue links to qualify as being a valid list article since it aids in navigation. Dream Focus 16:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:DIRECTORY, in particular #1 -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, information is worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- NoCOBOL (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• To go further, what information are we talking about? There is no proof that any of the list items are accurate since there are no sources. Some of them are not even rebellions, for example, Yuri from Command and Conquer is more of a world domination supervillain and Dumbledore's Army is a student organization. All of this potentially inaccurate or false content could not possibly be useful and the hodgepodge lack of organization is the very definition of indiscriminate._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Andrew Davidson. Clearly a thorough search for sources brought up nothing that was actually about this topic, but rather a grab bag of sources that have similar names because of multiple meanings of the word "rebel" and a liberal interpretation of the word "fiction". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also per comments such as Zxcvbnm's immediately above, which bring back memories of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional currencies: in that case, some clickbaity listicles were Googled up that actually dealt with the topic in question (as opposed to here, where they are on obviously unrelated topics), but they clearly couldn't support the content of the article as it existed (which was all OR, with most of inaccurate), and no effort was made to rewrite the article based on what sources were found. Obviously, even if sources are located for this topic, they are only useful to support the continued existence of an article that accurately reflected their contents, not a completely unsourced piece of OR that was mostly not even accurate to the fictional primary sources it was based on. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NoCOBOL & Hijiri 88. The list is unsourced, and seems to be mostly cobbled together OR. As mentioned, the references listed here by Andrew D. are not about the same topic as the article, and thus are completely invalid as to providing notability to the topic. Even if the topic itself did prove itself notable enough to have a list, the current article would still have to go, because it is a terrible list that has no actual logic on the entries that it included, which includes a multitude of things that could not, in even the broadest terms, be considered a "rebel movement". 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The concept of an article of fictional rebellions is possible (we have List of revolutions and rebellions), however this is so unstructured and undefined that it is pointless in its current form and really qualifies under WP:NUKEIT. It is a mix of computer-game rebellions (Sonic Hedgehog, Final Fantasy), movie (Star Wars), books (My Brother Sam is Dead) etc. Some don't even seem like rebellions. Can't imagine a reader finding this article useful. It should be deleted and maybe another editor will attempt a more structured and useful list. Britishfinance (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2019 (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.