Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-villain


 * 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 (list has been removed).  Citi Cat   ♫ 03:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anti-villain
Delete. This is like all those "List of heroes" or "List of villains" that were deleted a while back. Its pretty much a list of various characters, and not all of them fit the description and a lot of it could be fitted as WP:POV. For example someone (before I edited it) listed Sandman as an antivillain, but only in his movie form. Why not in his comic form? As it is it just seems a dumping ground for people to list their favorite characters.

I suppose, that if this article could be categorized and sourced like List of fictional anti-heroes, I might retract my deletion but I don't see that happening. CyberGhostface 01:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Conceptually Keep well, actually, this isn't just like all those lists, as the article itself opens with a description of the concept, and it would seem to me to be the obvious thing to write an article on this subject, the same as one for the concept of the anti-hero. Well, not the same as that article, since it's rather poor too.  If the only concern about the article is the list, then remove the list.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't actually find it eligable for deletion. It's pretty informative and helps us with how an opposite of an anti-hero works. ZeroGiga 22:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with anti-hero. The term is out there, but I found very few reliable soured usages, let alone anything to use as a definition. --Dhartung | Talk 02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteWhere is notability established for this term? I searched google a little bit and couldnt find any "reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term" - WP:NEO - Corpx 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Source and Keep When I frist read the article what struck me was the lack of sourcing, leading to me questioning the truthfulness of the article. It seems to be an existent term, but it definitely needs some sources attributed to it (which probably exist somewhere). As long as we can establish factuallity, I don't see any reason to delete it. The list is a pretty bad assortment, so I would suggest either removing it entirely (which I may do), or keeping a very small, select few (maybe two or three), simply as examples, with a full explanation of how they are examples (the list is also pretty incomplete, I can't believe it leaves out The Brain from Pinky and the Brain). Calgary 03:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The term has been used, but I could only find a handful of references on google scholar + books, plus maybe a couple of reliable sources on the web. Recurring dreams 05:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge the non-list part with anti-hero. It fits rather well: Anti-hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs)
 * Delete: A google search for either "Anti villain" or "anti-villain" comes up with 7,390 hits. A good number of these seem to be for a band called Anti villain, with others from sources like urban dictionary, and a good number from fan sites for comic books.  So, as one editor says above, the term is in use.  However, the issue here is whether we can establish that the term has a fairly consistent meaning that is in widespread use.  My limited research leads me to believe that the term is somewhat new.  The term "anti-hero" is regularly employed by groups as diverse literary theorists (and other academics), comic fans, and movie critics.  AND, it is used in print.  (There are 3,550 hits for anti-hero on Google Scholar alone.  A regular Google search yields over 2 million hits.)  "Anti-hero" is in the OED; anti-villain is not.

"Anti-villain" may be a useful term (I happen to think it is) that is being used by a good number of people. However, there seems to be a lack of sources (electronic or print) of either the scholarly or popular type with which we can document the use of the term. Further, amongst those using this term right now, there seems to be a lack of consensus as to what exactly an anti-villain is. This can be seen by looking over the list in the current Wikipedia article or reading through some of the forum posts a Google search will bring up.

Unless someone can come up with solid sources (whether they be in a comic book fan magazine or scholarly journal) that can document this term, it needs to be deleted. So far as I understand, Wikipedia is not in the business of helping to define new terms. So once again, my vote is delete for now. If use of this term continues and makes its way into a documentable source, I have no doubt we'll see this term back on Wikipedia in a year or two. Fixer1234 08:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but without prejudice to recreation. I do not think that we can call a Google search of any kind (even and especially Google Scholar) evidence for deletion in any case (there are plenty of things in this world that are not on 'the google').  Alternatively, the article just doesn't have enough information yet.  If somebody wants to do some research, I'm fairly certain they'll find print on 'anti-villains' and that the information will be able to be moved back into its own article. CaveatLectorTalk 14:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Victor falk SLSB  talk 14:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove the list. The term is in reasonably common use in reliable sources, but the list is unsourced OR.  There are a few characters who have been described as anti-villains in reliable sources (e.g. Jon Kavanaugh from The Shield , John Travolta's character in Swordfish sourced from this book), and Krogstad in Ibsen's A Doll's House  ), and these should perhaps be used as examples in a text paragraph, including descriptions of the characters, rather than the current list format which attracts OR. JulesH 14:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment One of my main problems was the list. If it can be removed or changed so that all the people are cited as such (again, like the antiheroes page) I won't have much of a problem with it.--CyberGhostface 15:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pure OR. --Eyrian 15:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the article, Delete the list. The concept is notable, but this needs a sorting out. Totnesmartin 22:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note I went ahead and removed the list from the article. Calgary 23:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I would vote for this to be kept if someone can supply a source for the term other than one tv show's DVD and interviews. Slavlin 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I supplied three further sources in my keep rationale above. Some work needs to be done to integrate them with the article, and I haven't had time to do so yet, but they do exist. JulesH 16:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Overhaul This concept is culturally notable, however it needs quite a bit of fleshing out and many more examples. There is a lot of room for improvement, but I believe that these improvements are forthcoming, so I believe that this AfD is premature. Archon of Atlantis 05:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * keep and overhaul - if JulesH and others were interested in improving this article, and if there are sources that discuss the concept of the "anti-villain". However, this'd require third-party sources discussing, and not just using a neologism; just wanted to point that out. Anyway, this article was only started April 2007, so perhaps it's a good idea to let it be developed. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:44, 26 July 2007 (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.