Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil Overlord List


 * 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&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 06:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Evil Overlord List
claim to notability is oblique, but can be inferred to be (1) lots of geeks have heard of this, and (2) somebody once got busted for plagiarizing it in a print publication. But it's thin on a google search omitting trivials (144 hits for an excerpt from the text of the list), and the second test seems irrelevant. I've discussed at longer length on the article's Talk page. Uucp 22:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - Weak Keep (Updated by Chris Kreider 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)) - Not something I know of in my circle, but may be legit. At least has some references but they look a little shady.  Especially the one citing his list, and having an accessed date like it was accessed from a professional reference site.  If so, Cite the site it is from.  Also, has a handful of external links that may be spamish.  Overall impression is not enough for  Destroy immediatly but a weak delete.  Chris Kreider 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this list has actually gotten published in a few print works I believe, including Knights of the Dinner Table so it's got some notability of its own. Think of it as a more modern equivalent of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" . FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - it floats around the internet enough that even I've heard of it. Additionally, it was involved in the public life of one of Australia's more controversial literary figures, and probably involved enough to warrant its own article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - i'm surprised more nerds here in wiki=land don't remember it; i certainly do (anspach's list that is). i agree that citations are somewhat weak, but considering the subject matter is something that circulated via e-mail in the earlier days of the world wide web, one would not expect differently. there are plenty of stub articles i've seen in wikipedia with much less information that no one is trying to delete (or even take notice of).
 * Keep I remember this; the arguments don't particularly convince me. Google hits can be made to said many things. --Gwern (contribs) 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless better sources can be found. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, several in-links. RJFJR 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Highly notable list. Nominator's principle for the Google search is incorrect - since there are many versions of the list, and the list is huge, searching for an exact text excerpt is not guaranteed to get all copies. Search for "evil overlord list": 59,000 Ghits. Here is a copy hosted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, and used in her popular lectures on writing science fiction (that's actually a pretty good reference, I'll add it to the article). Here is a "random plot generator" based on it, again from Teresa Nielsen Hayden. There is a newsgroup dedicated to it; here is its FAQ. (Should also be in the article, actually, hang on...) Here is a book compilation using this principle. (That's it, I'm not going to add any more to the article, I'm tired...). AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:38, 27 October 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.