Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supernatural being

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 redirect to Supernatural. Reading over all of the comments, this is an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural being (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a proper disambiguation page, having zero matching titles, and zero topics that would pass the "also known as" test. This is merely a partial list of things that would be described as types of something. Delete and redirect the title to Supernatural. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 03:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Rob3512 (Talk) 04:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not know what this is. Possibly a list? It certainly is not a disambiguation page for the purpose we use them for here. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Please note that supernatural creature redirects there, and it is a notable topic discussed for example in the SF encyclopedia. Perhaps this should be a full blown article or a list, as indeed it likely should be more than just a disambig (I see that the reference I've added was removed as inappopriate for disambig pages...sigh). Not sure about a redirect, this used to be a redirect to Non-physical entity but some supernatural beings are, arguably, physical entities. And the suggestion of redirecting to Supernatural is not good, as that page doesn't mention any of the entities from the SF encyclopedia linked (vampires, golems, zombies, etc.). Hence, my vote is "keep and expand into a proper article"; leaving it as a list (a de facto "list of spernatural beings/list of supernatural creatures") will do for now if nobody wants to work on that. Ping User:TompaDompa, User:Uncle G, User:Daranios, whom I believe may be interested in working on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: I do understand what you are trying to get at here, but I think it is unworkable due to the breadth and amorphousness of the term "supernatural". Could every individual "god" be separately listed as a supernatural being? All of the ones on the list of Mesopotamian deities and the list of Germanic deities and the list of Yoruba deities, for example? Could Moses and Jesus and all of the bodhisattvas (enlightened beings) of Buddhism? What about completely fictional magical creatures like the Displacer beast and the Rust monster? At the end of the day, a supernatural being (or creature) is merely a being that is supernatural. If the problem is that they are not listed in that article, then expand that article to note the creatures. BD2412 T 18:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BD2412: The fact that a topic is broad does not mean that there cannot be a proper list. If "supernatural being" is a notable topic, I and I am convinced it is, then it fullfills WP:LISTN. The corresponding guideline describes the solution for the problem you raise, and it's not deletion: "When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See [[new list]] link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list." Obviously, we don't want to list all individual gods here, even though they are supernatural beings. We group them. So we would stay with a link to Deity and/or Lists of deities, rather than listing them indivdually. Someone else has already done that for us. As for what to include, the "amorphousness of the term", we can solve this as we always do when things are contested: We include those beings that secondary sources say are supernatural only. The types currently included are verified by SF encyclopedia. Daranios (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Religion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is certainly not a valid disambiguation page. A list of supernatural beings seems indiscriminate, but in any case this is not a list article. The fact supernatural creature links here just means that redirect should also be deleted and for the same reason. In fact this and the redirect should also be deleted per WP:RFD#DELETE 1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Thus this should be deleted without any redirect. The argument that this could be a possible article, while not totally implausible, is not a reason to keep this article. This article is a poor starting point for any such article and WP:TNT would apply. If there is an encyclopaedic topic on this subject (and I see no evidence this is the case, but it is possible), an editor could just as easily create the page from scratch, and create a properly sourced and researched article, as to rework this one. Indeed, I would suggest they are more likely to do so if this hot mess is gone. Because the new article would, presumably, be sourced and completely different to this one, this AfD would not preclude them making such an article (assuming any such article is itself notable). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this page is deleted, the redirect will automatically be deleted as well per speedy deletion criterion G8. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: I would think that the redirect could also be recreated as a redirect to Supernatural. BD2412 T 18:39, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sirfurboy This is "no evidence"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is not that there is a lack of content referring to beings or creatures as supernatural, but that there is such a wide range of it that it becomes impossible to actually have a page listing them. It would be rather like having an article on Things that are relatively heavy. BD2412 T 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is evidence of what? That a tertiary source, an encyclopaedia of SF, has decided there is a valid article to be had about supernatural creatures in science fiction. List articles on Wikipedia must not be indiscriminate, and that article does suggest that something can be said about supernatural creatures in a particular genre of literature, but that is not the same as just having an article about supernatural beings which is quite certainly indiscriminate as User:BD2412 has shown. As I said, I see no evidence that any encylopaedic treatment of all supernatural beings in all genres is possible. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand to a proper list or article as per Piotrus. The topic is notable, most entries can and have been referenced by the SF Encyclopedia. So a secondary source tells us that these entries are not only "described as types of something", but rather they are indeed and do fit into a list of supernatural beings. Daranios (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Sirfurboy. I would also note in passing that the ref to the SF Encylopedia is specifically about supernatural beings in fiction - or science fiction to be precise. The scope of the Supernatural being page as it is is much broader, and if expanded would have to include such beings in religion and mythology, which will cause the page to bloat and become even more confusing to users landing on it. Retinalsummer (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Supernatural as indirectly stated by nom who said "Delete and Redirect". No need to confuse the situation by just voting Delete - the desired result can be accomplished simply with one edit (WP:BLAR). This is a plausible search term and should redirect somewhere. That being said, I have no prejudice against creating a properly referenced article here. Put promises of such an article are not a valid reason to keep this dab-like article in its present form. MB 21:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Supernatural per nom. The lead there already links to a handful of these concepts. Jontesta (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As disambiguation pages are not a search index. I do not believe it should be redirected either, as it is overly vague to refer to any one thing. The search function would be better for this particular term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: This is what the search function would return, which mostly seems to be episodes or seasons of the TV series Supernatural. Would that be better? BD2412 T 04:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a list article. I'll note that it's incomplete, Angels and Djinn should obviously be included, but "supernatural being" is a proper superset of all the listed sorts of entities. I'm not sure this is best understood as a fictional topic; glad to see that it's been belatedly DELSORT'ed into mythology as well. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Delete as nominator suggests. Fails WP:D Bruxton (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: If this fails the requirements of a disambiguation page, why not treat it is a list? Daranios (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is indiscriminate as a list. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Why? It does not fall into the categories of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Supernatural, and I think supernatural being, are valid topics. It's a broad topic, but the guidelines tell us how to handle that, and we have other valid lists on very broad topics, just take Lists of women, for example. Daranios (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, supernatural beings are everything beyond natural from every religion and every mythology, as well as genre fiction, every being in fantasy and roleplaying games. It is literally every imaginable being that is not natural. Imagination is infinite and so is the list. It is only bounded by the speed at which new beings are invented. The effort of keeping such a list up to date is sisyphean, and the benefit from doing so is unclear. Why does anyone need a list that includes all hindu gods and all types of elves in all literature and a shambling mound and Q from Star Trek? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Presumably for the same reasons someone found it worth to maintain a List of lists of lists: To help navigate and explore the wonderful width of Wikipedia. As outlined above, this is not as difficult as it might appear at first glance. One can start out with what we have now, the types of supernatural beings which appear in tertiary sources. Maybe going through your examples can make this clearer: Hindu gods would not be included here individually, as they would be covered by a link to Lists of deities (just like no individual woman appears in Lists of women). So, arguably, would be Q. Not "all types of elves in all literature" would be included, that's the job of the elf article, which should be included assuming secondary/tertiary sources say they count as supernatural beings. The shambling mound is only a redirect at present, so we don't need to worry about in currently, and only when it's an article look if sources say its supernatural and of what type. Daranios (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to supernatural per nom, where these examples are already covered more properly. If there are some examples that are suitable, a slight merge would be acceptable. Jontesta (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to and slightly expand supernatural with material about some of the creatures (e.g vampire) if necessary. TNstingray (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to supernatural. desmay (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Supernatural per above. Not a proper dab page, and similar in scope to that article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist. No consensus, opinions are divided between Delete, Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Supernatural makes the most sense. If this article was longer we could talk about merging the two but there really isn't much to work with here so redirect appears to be the best course of action here. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although I feel deletion is better, redirect is acceptable and would be content with that compromise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Supernatural. As it stands, this is easy WP:TNT territory. If someone wants to create a proper article, best to draft from scratch (the page edit history is worthless). And Sirfurboy above provides a great argument on why this would be inappropriate and indiscriminate as a list. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 14:51, 29 September 2022 (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.