Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-fictional heroes

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 of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of non-fictional heroes

Un-encyclopedic unverifiable list with no definite standard for what qualifies as a hero. Only page of substance that links to it is Hero. The page is of little value to anyone. Delete Peyna 21:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NPOV - inherently subjective. Also, not maintainable. PJM 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of value to at least all the people that have edited it. This page was recently split off from Hero and List of heroes. The edit history for most of the items on the page can be found at Hero article history. The Talk:Hero page also has some relevant discussion that directly lead to the creation of this page. Turnstep 22:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Every page is probably of value to its contributors, but that doesn't mean it's worth keeping. It is painful to see something you worked on be deleted, but such is the way of Wikipedia. Not everything gets to stay; from the smallest edit to the largest page. Peyna 23:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can quickly provide the objective reference (reports on polls, perhaps?) for each entry demonstrating why each person on the list is objectively determined to be "a hero." Even sidestepping the POV issue, the term is is overly broad to be even a point of consensus. There is also high potential for becoming a vandalism magnet. 147.70.242.21 23:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be very easy to justify why nearly everyone on the current list is a hero. George Washington is a notable hero. This is easily proven, as anyone featured on the banknotes of a country must be a hero, or she/he wouldn't be there. Wallie 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much who is a hero, but who isn't a hero? If the list can come up with a discrete set of requirements for what makes someone a hero, it might be worth keeping, but until then it is an indiscriminate collection of information, which is something Wikipedia is not. Peyna 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and but why have List of anti-heroes, List of fictional heroes, List of villains and List of real people appearing in fictional context not been nominated as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that List of villains and List of anti-heroes should be deleted on the same basis, but the other two articles you mention at least have a meaningful criterion for inclusion. --Ryano 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I not sure I follow you in that fictional heroes is OK but non-fictional are not. It could be stated that the list of fictional heroes is Un-encyclopedic unverifiable list with no definite standard for what qualifies as a hero. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A fictional "hero" is not the same thing as a non-fictional "hero". It is possible to identify in a reasonably objective manner whether a character fulfils the role of "hero" in a work of fiction. In real life this is not so easy, and is inevitably subject to POV. --Ryano 13:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah but the same POV applies to fiction as well. The article on Elric of Melniboné says he is an anti-hero but I would consider him a hero. What about Beatrix Kiddo from Kill Bill? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I think the main difference between the two is that references to fictional characters as heroes, anti-heroes, or villains can be found in scholarly journals and cited within those respective lists, whereas no such thing is even theoretically possbile for this one. It's an important distinction. -Colin Kimbrell 06:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I didn't nominate the others because this helps to consolidate the discussion in one location. If this page is deleted, then we can maybe discuss what to do with the other pages in time, using this discussion as a basis for that. Peyna 14:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as inherently POV and an invitation to edit wars. The criterion "people who have been considered heroes" is so open-ended as to be meaningless. --Ryano 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as List of real people referred to as heroes and keep. Could be an interesting list. Would do better sorted alphabetically by surname. David | Talk 13:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Grackle 22:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think we all know what a hero is. We can objectively look at people from whatever nationality and see whether they have done heroic acts. Some people may do heroic acts, and also do bad things too. That is human nature. Each country has its heroes. Ask anyone in the street. If you ask someone from India, many would say Kapil Dev is a hero. Ask in England, and the answer would most probably be David Beckham. Ask in the United States, and it would be George Washington. In South Africa, Nelson Mandella. In Singapore, Lee Kwan Yew. In Australia, Donald Bradman. In Germany, Michael Schumacher, etc etc. It is quite easy, really. Wallie 14:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Not necessarily. The American Heritage Dictionary lists the following applicable definitions for the word "hero":

1. In mythology and legend, a man, often of divine ancestry, who is endowed with great courage and strength, celebrated for his bold exploits, and favored by the gods.
2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life: soldiers and nurses who were heroes in an unpopular war.
3. A person noted for special achievement in a particular field: the heroes of medicine. See Synonyms at celebrity.
4. The principal male character in a novel, poem, or dramatic presentation.

Under the first definition, you'd only have a list of people from mythology whose existence can be verified by historical record. Under the second, you'd add soldiers, diplomats, and political activists. Under the third, it'd consist of almost everybody notable enough to merit a bio on Wikipedia. Under the fourth, you could add any real person who's ever been the subject of a fictional work, be it Charles Manson or Benedict Arnold. Furthermore, under the traditional usage of the term, it is impossible for a woman to be a "hero", as the term was at one point applied exclusively to men. Without extensive clarification and codification, it's an unmaintainable swamp, and that's looking beyond the obvious and inevitable POV issues if/when someone decides to add a problematic or controversial figure like Yasser Arafat or Paul Robeson to the list. For these reasons, Delete unless inclusion criteria are rigorously defined in an extremely narrow and objective fashion.-Colin Kimbrell 18:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As you mention, you could include many many people under these definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary. However, in reality, when people refer to heroes in their own country, or who they can think of, relatively few names comes up. In other words, the people set higher criteria. As far as women are concerned, there are plenty of examples, eg, Madonna (pop star), who is listed, and from fiction, who better than Brunhilde riding through the clouds on a white horse to the theme of Apocalypse Now. Wallie 21:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The "higher criteria" in operation on this list already include unverifiably real people like Heracles, dictators like Fidel Castro and Josef Stalin, and religious figures like Jesus and Mohammed. How can there possibly be consensus on something like this, particularly in the absence of any written guidelines for inclusion? -Colin Kimbrell 00:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Easy. They are all heroes. Stalin was considered by nearly every allied leader towards the end of WW2 to be a hero for his defeat of the Germans in many major battles including Kursk. Naturally he was a hero in the Soviet Union itself at the time. To put him off the list because of subsequent events is revisionism. The list as it stands at the moment is very good. We need more names! Wallie 06:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This exchange is an excellent example of exactly the sort of dispute I was talking about. Can you imagine how offensive it could be for someone whose relatives died in the Gulags to see Stalin's name on a List of non-fictional heroes? If the standard is that future infamies can't wipe out past heroism, Adolf Hitler (received the Iron Cross for WWI service) and Benedict Arnold (capture of Fort Ticonderoga, Saratoga campaign, etc.) belong as well. -Colin Kimbrell 06:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Colin. Thanks. Am continuing this discussion on the main discussion page for the article. Wallie 09:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Any biography could appear here depending upon one's POV. So while this page exists, it is either a) a duplicate of Lists of people ; or b) POV. Either way that's reason for it to be deleted. jmd 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep parallels other lists not nominated for deletion. Could use a better intro, though. Durova 19:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are they? If you point some out, I'll be glad to nominate those as well. -Colin Kimbrell 06:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete, inherently POV, lacks any useful inclusion criteria. Jesus and Stalin do not belong on the same list; nor do the designer of the Titanic and mythical figures like Aeneas. Hardly any of these people are "non-fictional heroes" in any sense - some because they were probably fictional, others because they are considered villains by a vast number of people, others because they are universally respected but not considered "heroes" as such. Sorry, but this is just irredeemable listcruft. — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 2 December 2005 (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.