Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Narnia

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. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Narnia

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

Queried speedy delete. This article looks relevant for readers looking for information about the Narnia scenario. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I unbulleted your comment for format as you are the nominator, feel free to undo. Deadbeef

Weak Keep Probably needs a significant update to become encyclopaedic but there are many similar articles for other fantasy worlds. Rehnn83 ^Talk 11:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination does not specify a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see nothing to suggest that this article has anything to add to the existing article Narnia. "What sort of thing is Narnia" indeed. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to say that this article would be very well served as a navbox. Then I scrolled to the bottom of Narnia and saw a nice big navbox ({{narnia}}). What's in the outline that isn't covered in the navbox seems INDISCRIMINATEish. Deadbeef 17:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What people seem to need is an understanding of what sort of thing an outline is and for that please see WP:OUTLINE. By their nature, these are not articles - they are another type of navigational aid like lists, categories and templates. Per WP:CLN, we don't favour any particular way of doing this and should not delete one type because it duplicates another. Andrew D. (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

an "Outline of Narnia" is what is provided by the lead section of the existing article. This should have been speedied as an article duplicatg the content of an existinng article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied it as a duplicate of Narnia (world) and The Chronicles of Narnia - my view still stands Gbawden (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently, this is nothing more than a bare list, and either a navigation box or a category would work better than this. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I just noticed this deletion discussion just now, and have not had time to work on this article to show those in the discussion what it can become. Please re-list this to give me a few days so I can work on it. Right now, this is a work-in-progress, and it is no where near complete. "Outline" is short for "hierarchical outline", and such outlines arrange topics in a tree structure. Some (but not all) of the best ones have annotations to assist with topic selection. The main difference between outlines and other page types is the way they are formatted -- they are a type of WP:LIST (structured topics list), more specifically a WP:STAND-alone-list. They are all part of the set at Portal:Contents/Outlines, one of Wikipedia's long established navigation systems. Note that Wikipedia has several somewhat redundant navigation systems, such as categories, navigation boxes, and lists (including outlines). Because each has the potential to leapfrog the others, and since each taps different strengths from various editors, the guideline WP:CLN (including WP:NOTDUP) was developed to keep the list system (which includes the outlines) from being hacked to pieces at deletion discussions, which has come to be seen as counter productive, since we have so many editors dedicated to working on lists. (And there are technologies on the horizon that may take list building and maintaining to the next level -- such as automatic taxonomy induction, a branch of natural language processing). With respect to what the navigation systems have to offer, different readers prefer different styles of browsing. The lists (and outlines) appeal to some users of Wikipedia, while the nav boxes and categories appeal to others. Well developed lists (including outlines) generally have more features than categories and nav boxes, and are much easier and faster to edit. But before you can have a great list, you must initially have a rudimentary list. Also keep in mind that some editors who are navigation system builders prefer to work almost entirely on the list navigation system (such as myself). For some examples among the best outlines, please take a look at Outline of chess, Outline of cell biology, Outline of Buddhism, Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, and Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling. For an example of an outline about a similar entertainment franchise, see Outline of Middle-earth. Many outlines serve as tables of contents for subjects that are made up of many articles across Wikipedia, while some outlines have evolved into classified glossaries (structured lists with annotations). Please allow Narnia to be added to this robust navigation system, as it falls within its scope and mission. Thank you. The Transhumanist 10:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an WP:OUTLINE, an established type of article. Some people like them, others don't. It really would be best if those who don't approve of outlines stop looking at them but if they really pose some underlying problem the matter should be brought up at a policy level. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2014 (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.