Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional self-harmers

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 no consensus. Petros471 13:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional self-harmers

This has no rigorous criteria, lacks references and gives no indication of the type and severity of self-harm. It is classic listcruft: a mish-mash of fictional characters united by some ill-defined trait. It includes magical creatures such as Dobby the House Elf and Spike from Buffy, who presumably have nothing to do with the medical definition of self-harm. See the discussion on the talk page. Nydas 14:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Criteria: it is outlined in the parent article, self-harm. References: aren't the films, plays, books, etc. themselves references?; Severity and type of self-harm: that can be added yourself if you want, but some characters practice several kinds of self-harm simultaneously, which bloats the list. If you think it's ill-defined, then fix the parent article (self-harm) instead. Dobby and Spike are there because they fit the self-loathing part of the self-harm article (which deals with medical definitions of self-harm). So if they don't fit the definition, I don't know who does. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 16:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep See List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual figures in fiction and myth for other examples of "lists of fictional characters meeting certain classification". There seems to be consensus that being fictional is not a reason to delete (much of Wikipedia covers fictional subjects). I don't know what you mean by "mish-mash". Self-harm is in most cases well-defined, at least as much as sexuality. There are borderline cases, but similarly we could quibble about male characters who once kissed a guy, and ask if that makes them gay? Such borderline cases do not detract from characters which clearly are portrayed as gay, or self-harmers. I'm also not sure why a non-human character means the concept of self-harm can't apply? The list could certainly do with references/explanations, similar to List of self-harmers - we should make an effort to add these, rather than simply deleting (I note that many of those under List of gay, lesbian, or bisexual figures in fiction and myth are also guilty of this). By the way, I would actively argue against trying to classify by people "type and severity of self-harm" - that's where things would start to become very ill-defined. How do you define severity? Should we list how "gay" people are in those other artices? Mdwh 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This is utterly useless and needlessly controversial. The fact that the self-harmaers are fictional makes me want to forget about them as soon as the TV broadcast is over. This is nothing but "self-harmer" boosterism. Sorry, screw your affliction. Go listen to [Nine Inch Nails] and [My Chemical Romance] until you feel like living again, or go ahead and kill yourself. Really we'd be better off without these fucking flakes. They take valuable time from interns and residents who have to sew up their stupid wounds. I myself am sick to death of stitching shut these dumbassses' abdominal cuts. Self-harm is a subject. Fictional self harm is a bunch of bullshit. Billy Blythe

  Sorry, but that comment really crossed the line big-time. There is no excuse for telling people to kill him- or herself. Just because you don't care about this doesn't mean everyone else should die. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 05:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Just because you don't like a paticular group, does not mean it should not be included in Wikipedia. I don't like Nazis, but I'm not opposed to there being articles about them. --OGoncho 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If we have List of self-harmers we should defintely keep this one. The only distinction is that List of self-harmers could run afoul of WP:LIVING. This list won't. The fictional work itself stands as the reference per Buchanan-Hermit. Is self-harm a recognized and diagnosable condition? Yes. Then we can include it. Controversy is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not censored. Irongargoyle 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Also see Category:Lists of fictional characters by medical condition for other examples of this type. Mdwh 01:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Mad scientism? If that's a medical condition, I certainly think this qualifies. heh. Irongargoyle 01:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:How about List of fictional wig wearers or List of fictional drug users? Non-humans are not covered in the self-harm article which is being touted as the 'definition'. The list currently contains characters like Agatha Ripp, a one episode character from Nip/Tuck, or 'Person praying to God in first chapter' from Hey Nostradamus!. As well as Dobby (twice), it also includes 'Non-fictional characters from books, television shows and films'. --Nydas 06:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  Regarding the "Hey Nostradamus!" addition: Not all characters are named, even the main ones. For example, I think the main character from "Fight Club" was never named directly, and was referred to as "The Narrator"? Besides, the entire Nostradamus book had 3 chapters in total, making the chapters quite long; I don't think there's a better way to explain who the character is without naming him like that. And also, why wouldn't Dobby be named twice? He's in both the book and the film; we can't just simply list one of them, for example, because that'd be regarding the film or the novel superior to the other. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment We do have List of fictional alcoholics. I could see why the non-fictional list should be removed, but that does not need to affect the whole page. --OGoncho 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Or maybe List of fictional characters missing an appendage - but wait, we do have that. The human issue is irrelevant, since this is not List of fictional non-human self-harmers. If you feel we shouldn't cover non-human characters, then take this up in the Talk. There are still plenty of human fictional characters who self-harm, so that's clearly not a reason to delete the article. (One might also ask how Doop (comics) can be considered bisexual! But again, the action there should be to remove him from the list, not delete the entire article.) Mdwh 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep While elves and vampires are fictional creatures, they are metaphors for human beings. As sentient creatures they could be considered fictional people, and therefore under the list's definition. And to clear up what they do: Dobby beats himself, and Spike claws at his chest in an attempt to remove his soul (leaving bloody gashes). --OGoncho 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Do alchoholics go on this list? What if someone pushes away loved ones? Are they self-destructing? Self-harming? What about chronic over-eaters? Seriously, much too broad. Wikipedia is not a collection of every type of list imagineable. Guyanakoolaid 09:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Self-harm, according its article, "is deliberate injury inflicted by a person upon his or her own body". This list has been written with that definition in mind. --OGoncho 09:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Much too broad, also borderline WP:NPOV or even WP:NOR violation as comments above suggest the list was created based upon the creator's interpretations of whether a fictional characters' actions constitute self-harm ... and anyone who has studied literature will tell you characters' motives are not always cut-and-dried. This is beside the point, but the term "self-harm" sounds a bit too much like "self-abuse" and might be misinterpreted. 23skidoo 13:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How it is POV? I do somewhat agree that the biggest problem with this is knowing whether the motivations would be what is usually considered self-harm (there is a similar issue with List of self-harmers, but there we can go by what the person themselves have said); having said that, this is also an issue with many of the others in Category:Lists of fictional characters by medical condition and elsewhere (e.g., List of fictional characters with phobias). Also it could be said that there's less reason to worry about borderline cases on a fictional list - the problem with labelling someone as bi/gay/a self-harmer when they don't consider themselves that is that it's bad for that person, and potentially libellous, but obviously this doesn't apply to fictional characters!
  • By the way, I would be happy to trim down the list to get rid of any borderline cases; there are still plenty of cases where there has been a clear intent to portray a self-harmer (the book Drawing Blood, or the film Secretary).
  • Self-harm is defined and explained in its article, so I don't see why that should be a problem. Mdwh 15:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• keep Doby and the like are considered to be self harmers on self harm support forums so I do not see the problem with including mythical characters. Perhapse asking one of the charities surrounding self harm and the associated mental illnesses would be a good idea if you want more structure to this list with 'types' of self harm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.18.243.162 (talk • contribs).
• Delete the scope of this list is far too broad to be maintainable. -- Samir धर्म 13:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. - CNichols 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Peta 04:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Irongargoyle and others. The term "self-harm" can be very narrow and focused, which is simply a case of good editing--not reason for deletion. This article can be very maintable and as mention it is a compliment to List of self-harmers. 205.157.110.11 09:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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.