Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antivillain (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to Villain. KTC (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Antivillain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be a non-notable neologism. The book cited is a thesis, not a normal published book. I see occasional uses of the word "antivillain" but no literature about what it means. The search "antihero is" OR "anti-hero is" gets >9,000 hits in Google Books; the search "antivillain is" OR "anti-villain is" gets 33. Another article on the same topic (different content) was deleted in 2008 for essentially the same reason. This was recently discussed (but without discussion of possible sources) at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There also appears to have been a 2007 deletion discussion at Articles for deletion/Anti-villain (not sure how to add it to the box on the right). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added that one to the list of past discussions. Calathan (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Villain. I commented on the source used here during the RfD.  The reason why I said it's probably not reliable is because it's someone's M.A. thesis.  WP:SCHOLARSHIP says:   I originally advocated a redirect to antihero, but now I think maybe Villain is a better choice.  I think "antivillain" is mostly a TV Tropes neologism, and while I think it's a legitimate concept, reliable sources are lagging behind my trailblazing opinions.  There are many sources for discussions of sympathetic villains, such as  (requires JSTOR subscription to read), but there just isn't enough for an article on antivillains.  It does get used occasionally in reliable sources: this article from The Philadelphia Inquirer, this article from Philadelphia Weekly, and this article from Collider.com.  However, this is not enough to pass WP:NEO. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note about that JSTOR source I mentioned above: it's basically a passing mention about the use of sympathetic villains in popular culture. I forgot to say this.  I brought it up as an example of how the underlying concept is discussed in academic papers, not as any kind of proof of notability of anything.  I wanted to make that clear, since it's not freely accessible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Villain, as per NinjaRobotPirate's excellent analysis.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:57, 9 November 2015 (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.