Deletion of Races and creatures in His Dark Materials

Comment: all). Merging is problematical.  The pieces are already quite long (although some are barely sourced ''for now'')  But just writing "fancruft" in the nomination of any fictional series is another form of |you don't like.  Ipse dixit doesn't apply here.  I endorse the reasoning of
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The two lists at least. I won't bother to comment on the other two right now. The arguments that those are proper splits are ridiculous.  is completely against that kind of content. These are lists of minutia that help nobody understand the context. Summary style content is king in fiction, and some people think that's impossible. Guess what? If the page is too long, then we simply don't need to cover the material unless backed by non-primary sources. I have never seen anyone actually argue why lists like these are necessary beyond pointless arguments like page views. Guess what? If you look at a specialized Wikia's views, they'll far surpass any page on Wikipedia. It's pointless to draw away views from useful information for this bare bones useless junk. Then there's the usual "there's sources because this is a popular series" arguments. The pages should not have been brought into existence without sources. If sources are actually abundant, we can try to imagine the articles' optimal states, but the promise of possible sources is just an excuse to let these linger
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: all) Just writing "fancruft" in the nomination of any fictional series |you don't like doesn't make it so
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: I came here from a link at DRV. don't have much of an opinion on the other articles but sources at least appear to exist and I'm going to assume they're fine, but nobody has discussed sourcing for the Races and Creatures or Locations articles, which are incredibly poorly sourced on  and flagrantly fail MOS:REALWORLD and listcruft guidelines
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I don't want to dig too deep in this set of topics as I'm watching the new adaptation and so am wary of spoilers.  But it's clear that there is extensive scholarship and sources for this material and so the claim that it fails  is false.  The main page, ''His Dark Materials'', is 68K as there are numerous works and adapations in a variety of media and so there's a lot of ground to cover.  Spinoffs and splits are therefore sensible and any structuring or restructuring is just a matter of ordinary editing per ,  and .  Deletion would be disruptive and so is not appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I don't have enough (or any) interest in the topic to do the  myself, but I find {{tq|these elements aren't covered in third-party reliable sources to an extent that could be the basis for a standalone article}} highly implausible. ''HDM'' is probably the single most heavily-discussed work of British fiction since ''The Lord of the Rings'' and just https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=his+dark+materials&oq=his+dark+ma dropping "His Dark Materials" into Google Scholar brings up a raft of academic papers on the topic, including works specifically about the topics of these individual articles (e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010334528566 ''Dust as an All-Inclusive, Multifunctional Metaphor in Philip Pullman's “His Dark Materials”'').&nbsp;&#8209;&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)