Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of urban legends

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban legends

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

Appears to have been copy-pasted from somewhere, (suspicion comes from the [1]. No references. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: If this article were to expand to have a paragraph about all urban legends at Category:Urban_legends, it would be overlong, and if it just listed them, it would be rather pointless. In theory, a list of urban legends could have a point, but in its current state, this one is a clear WP:TNT candidate. --Slashme (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Yes, multiple copyright violations found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. It's a compilation, each paragraph is cut-and-paste from a different source. This needs to be quickly deleted per WP:COPYVIO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfect valid list article. The copyrighted material in question is just copied from the Wikipedia articles they link to, so its not a problem. And the rules clearly state you shouldn't destroy a list article, simply because you prefer categories. Both can exist. This article list related articles in a legitimate grouping, to aid in navigation, and provide far more information than a category could. Dream Focus 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, good point. On further review, it looks like much (maybe all) of the duplicate material I found is itself copied from WP. I've struck out what I said. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN. See Encyclopedia of Urban Legends, for example. See also WP:CLN. Andrew D. (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, esp. WP:CLN and specifically WP:AOAL because this clearly allows users to browse legends with more context than the category. Wouldn't do to fit everything into the main article, Urban legend. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely needs work but I see no reason it couldn't be improved, referenced, etc. A sensible set of inclusion criteria isn't hard to imagine, either, so keep and improve. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable article, just needs some work and might turn into very interesting topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rody19901504 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Wikipedia:LISTNAME by being a broad list of limited value. By the very nature of the list it will be incomplete as there are lots of urban legends (making it violate WP:IINFO). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 04:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles don't have to be complete. That was never a requirement, and is never an excuse to delete them. Dream Focus 09:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the WP:NOTDUPE equivalent of the similar Category:Urban legends, it serves a legitimate navigational purpose. Diego (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2017 (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.