Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional models

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 no consensus. WP:TNT, really the only deletion rationale here, is contrary to typical practice and so especially needs a clear consensus to apply, which is not present here. The list can be expanded from the entries in Category:Fictional models. List of fictional beauty queens probably should have been nominated separately, and its inclusion here appears to have been overlooked by most participants. An immediate renomination of just that list would not be out of order. postdlf (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional models

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

Listcruft. TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination 2.5 hours since creation, 2 hours since last edit, is just entirely poor manners. WP:BEFORE, WP:CHANCE, and WP:DEMOLISH all seem to apply in some form to this situation. In other words, when the nominator is going to jump the gun like that, I expect the burden of proof to be on him or her that such an article is never potentially encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I simply foresee a list with few 'notable' entries and the potential for a lot of meaningless names, linkable to non-notable novels.TheLongTone (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also "poor manners" to just chuck blatantly unfinished articles into mainspace and leave them there, instead of properly building them up in userspace/draftspace/WP:AFC and moving them when ready. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would this list be categorized with dynamic lists that are listed under the category "List of fictional characters by occupation"? This list seems like it is modeling itself after articles like List of fictional doctors, List of fictional double agents, and List of fictional witches. If so, then this should probably be kept as all of those articles are kept after similar AFDs. I also agree with Jclemens that it probably would have been best to wait a little longer to give the original creator time to expand the article if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a dynamic list, such as the ones I listed above. The article definitely needs more work though. Aoba47 (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Satellizer's comment, and have struck out my previous keep vote. The article is unfinished, and has not had any activity since the middle of last month. The article can always be recreated in the future in a more completed state. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rename: Seems as reasonable as any similar list. Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft/userspace at the very least. Come on, guys. This article is blatantly unfinished, contains only eight entries, of which only two have pages. I know WP:NOEFFORT is generally not an acceptable rationale, but I'll be happy to go with WP:TNT here. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Appears to be WP:LISTCRUFT or otherwise not useful to readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 09:32, 31 October 2016 (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.