List of fictional frogs and toads : "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".  This does not appear to be the case, instead this is a list version of WP:NOTTVTROPES / WP:IPC .  Not sure if anything here can be rescued into a merger with Frogs in culture .  IF this is kept, then at minimum we should redirect the fork List of fictional frogs and toads in animation back here (and if this is not kept, that fork should suffer the same fate as the main list nominated here).  PS.  If this is kept, then it needs major gutting as many - most - entries here don't even adhere to the list official inclusion criteria ("It is restricted solely to notable frog and toad characters from notable works of fiction"), with plenty of red of black links to non-notable fictional frogs and toads.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Animal , Popular culture ,  and Lists .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete we don’t need lists for everything Dronebogus ( talk ) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTNEEDED D r e a m Focus 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Have added two sources which consider the topic in general.  Note that this list is one of a whole hierarchy of Lists of fictional animals (shown in the footer navbox), some of which could usefully have better sourcing while some such as List of fictional badgers are scholarly and well-sourced.  Pam D 07:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ PamD Thanks.  The list of amphibians source seems to be a different (broader) topic still in need of a list of fictional amphibians .  The Guardian article seems reasonably relevant.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 07:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note that the equivalent French list (also not well sourced) seems to include quite a bit which isn't in this list and could provide inspiration for expansion, with careful research to find some sources.  Pam D 07:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Some entries need to be removed.   Discussion on inclusion criteria should on the talk page of the article.   If they have their own Wikipedia article or if they are mentioned in reliable sources, of course have them.   If they are most or all episodes of a notable show, or are just briefly there, or don't do anything at all, should they be there?   Trevor was someone's frog in one of the Harry Potter novels, but did it actually do anything at all?   Someone had a pet frog in a book, does that mean anything?  D r e a m Focus 15:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - "Some entries need to be removed" is certainly an understatement, as most of the entries need to be removed.  Very few of these entries actually meet the criteria of being "restricted solely to notable frog and toad characters from notable works of fiction" (my favorite probably has to be that someone put in "frog" from Symphony of the Night, a generic enemy in the game).  That said, there are at least somewhere around ten or so unquestionably notable examples with articles listed here.  And while the added sources aren't the greatest so far, they are enough to make me think that this list should stick around for the chance of a major cleanup and subsequent further discussion.  So I'm probably willing to recommend a Weak Keep on this, provided that the list is pruned down to just those notable entries, and it does not preclude the possibility of a merge to a broader, better sourced topic, such as the mentioned possibilities of Frogs in culture or an eventual list of fictional amphibians .  That pointless List of fictional frogs and toads in animation spinout definitely needs to go, though.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , frogs and toads do have a long history of usefulness in literature, and their frogginess/toadiness is essential to their role.  There are a lot of notable frogs and notable frog-stories in this list, and the cultural significance of frogs and toads is definitely notable.  Provided no one gets silly about this, and starts listing everything vaguely frog-like that's ever got a passing mention anywhere - i.e. provided it's restricted to notable literary amphibians - then I think it's a useful list.  Imagine a kid asking himself/herself whether fairy-stories with frogs are just the tip of a frogberg in literature in general (which is a good question for an encyclopaedia-user): this list would help them find their answer.  Elemimele ( talk ) 18:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP , but move to List of fictional amphibians and remove any non-bluelinked entries.  The current title and inclusion criteria are totally arbitrary.  I also support merging any bluelinked entries from the animation list.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 02:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and possibly change scope to List of fictional amphibians , if notability is clearer then.  To add to the secondary sources put forward by PamD , to show that there is enough material for frogs and toads in fiction and therefore WP:LISTN : Amphibians Their Care and Keeping , p. 148, has a section on amphibians in fiction section.  And a full (old) books exists for Reptilien und Amphibien in Sage, Sitte und Literatur (Reptiles and amphibians in legend, custom and literature), containing a 39-page-chapter on "Frogs" and a 22-page-chapter on "Toads and other creatures".  Daranios ( talk ) 11:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Daranios For the record, I would expect amphibians in fiction /popular culture/literature to be a notable topic.  (One of the sci-fi encyclopedias I am familair with has an entire chapter or mice and rats in sci-fi).  I do think, however, that this needs to be rewritten as a prose rather than a list, and WP:TNT is needed for articles that gigantic TVTropes lists.  Alas, the consensus seems to be to keep this (and will anyone even try to remove the unreferencec cruft...?).  Frankly, maybe I'll find time myself to write an article on this (red-linked here), and then in x months/years we can discuss if this list is necessary (as I have serious doubts it will see any improvements in foreseeable future...).  PS.  But perhaps such a list is better than nothing, given that the proper prose article doesn't exist yet.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 12:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Piotrus : As usual, I think this list has worth as an overview of appearances of the topic at Wikipedia (which would remain in parallel to the existance of a prose article).  Thankfully, SilverTiger12 has already done a significant amount of cleanup :-).  Daranios ( talk ) 15:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Passes WP:CLN , WP:AOAL .  // Timothy :: talk 05:12, 27 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep