Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional anti-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 was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fictional anti-heroes

List of fictional anti-heroes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - we recently deleted a number of categories for "heroes," "villains," "anti-heroes" and the like on the grounds that inclusion was too subjective. A listing of anti-heroes suffers the same problems as a category for them, and has the additional problems of incompleteness and maintainability. See also the Afd for List of fictional heroes a little up the page. Otto4711 17:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It isn't subjective because we can use secondary sources who identify the characters in the list as anti-heroes. Seems like a good article that can be made even better. I'd like to see more sourcing to scholarly literature that talks about some of these characters in the context of anti-herodom. Tarinth 17:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd agree, if not for the policy that states that there must be a verifiable source confirming that the character is an antihero. There have been cases where users randomly add their favorite characters but I and other editors have worked hard to keep them out of it and their edits are usually reverted the same day. A category which cannot verify if the articles are representative is not the same as a list with legit, cited sources.--CyberGhostface 18:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is different from the list of fictional heroes. Anti-heros are fairly easy to determine and only occur in particular genres of fiction. This can be a useful list. Sam Blacketer 18:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The list is verified (every example has at least one reliable source) and is strictly monitored (by me and others) to ensure it remains as such, rather than become unmanageable or full of POV and OR as has happened with previous versions of the list and with the categories. And incompleteness is hardly reason to delete an article. --TM 18:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as the article is sourced with scholars which identify the characters as antiheroes the subjectivity issue is eliminated by the presence of a body of professional opinion establishing that said characters fit the form. If someone really has a problem with the list as it is named. Perhaps rename it to List of Characters Argued to Be Anti-heroes or something. Though I find that a bit weasel worded myself. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 19:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• No need to rename it, and your suggested name would just open the door to a bunch of nonsensical borderline cases (anything can be "argued" but generally disregarded by the plurality of professional opinion). Tarinth 21:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the anti-hero is an important critical concept and if sourced a list is better than a category. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, indiscriminate, unsourced, or OR-based lists are bad, but this one is thoroughly sourced and provides more information than a category could, by linking character, work, and source, all in one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is carefully referenced and policed by numerous editors. OR is rejected. POV is rejected. Only those called "anti-heroes" by outside sources are listed, as is noted at the top. We can probably go through and weed out a few based on notability of the sources, but the list itself works. Doczilla 21:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The list is too broad and generalized, see WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate things. Davidpdx 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Points those seeking information in the right direction. Wikikiwi 10:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If none bothers explaining why it's to be deleted. "We deleted a template with 'of' in the name" wouldn't really be an explanation either. -- User:Docu

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.