Deletion of List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia (2nd nomination)

Comment: per {{u|Bearian}}. There's some overlapping coverage, but it's ''not'' a complete duplicate |content fork, so that portion of the "keep" arguments is thus invalidated. As well, given the ''age'' of this alphabetical list, which is arguably the ''better'' of the two, likely precludes us from outright deleting per . The merge should occur at the talk page of the subject list; we shouldn't dictate where or how to merge. Sure, this list needs some improvement to meet , but it's not a complete fail, either. As well, we have to remember "keep" and "merge" are essentially variants of each other; thus, those who !voted "keep" despite this being |not a vote will likely be amenable to a merge in some fashion. That is, they just oppose deletion (for different, some incorrect, reasons
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK||WP:ATT||WP:LISTN||WP:NOTVOTE)

Comment: Per . Fancruft that does not merit a separate list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: This is a whole lot of in-universe plot summary that is either largely unsourced or relying on primary sources.  The actually important locations that do not have independent articles are already covered at Narnia (world).  The vast bulk of the rest of these entries are a bizarre mixture of very minor locations, locations that never actually appeared in the books but were "mentioned" by a character, and things that are not locations at all.  While there are sources that do talk about the major locations in the series, they are, again, already covered elsewhere, and there are no sources that would allow this huge amount of cruft to pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I have been on the fence with this one, as I usually am regarding lists. However I note that https://narnia.fandom.com/wiki Narnia Fandom Wiki has such a list, and their list links to more information on their wiki. I think that is the appropriate wiki project for this information, and the discussion above indicates that any notable information in the list is already preserved elsewhere on Wikipedia. This list is not adding to the freedom of knowledge, and Wikipedia's higher search rankings actually means that the better information on the fandom site lacks visibility. I looked at the 2007 arguments for retention and see that none of them really concerned the notability of the information per , because criteria were different then. I cannot see how this meets GNG, and I actually think interested readers would be better served if it were gone
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Almost entirely unsourced (therefore also do not merge), fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)