Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atheist fictional characters


 * 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 Afterlife for this article. --Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 14:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Atheist fictional characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Most of this is original research and unsourced. List items are based on subjective judgment by editors as to the supposed atheistic nature of movies, books, etc. List criteria are vague, poorly defined, and overbroad, making the list an indiscriminate collection of information. In any case, a list of atheists in fiction ought to begin as a subsection of the main List of atheists. Nick Graves 05:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. Subheaders like "Books that generally are atheist in nature, although the main characters are not outwardly atheist," etc, are absurd and contrary to guidelines for lists.  If it is kept, all OR should be eliminated. janejellyroll 05:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep List needs more sources, but that's not criteria for deletion. Mark cleanup or wikify, possibly. Citicat 06:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lack of sources is but one problem with this list. The main problem is that the list is original research, which is a criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Listcruft - why exactly is this stuff needed or interesting? Also subjective and potentially endless - is any book or other fiction where the characters don't express their religious views eligible? --Brianyoumans 06:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR magnet, and indiscriminate collection of information - if the characters have no other thing in common and even that can't be verified, it's unlikely to be useful to readers. Orderinchaos78 07:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced OR. Also inaccurate in that a number of the examples I spotted during just a quick glance at the list were of shows and/or characters said to be critical or skeptical of God. As theologians will tell you, that's not the same as being a true athiest. A (sourced) list of characters whose athiesm is a primary motivator -- as in that's what their character is all about -- might work, but I see too many POV judgement calls in this one. 23skidoo 13:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced original research, and a completely arbitrary and indiscriminate list.-- danntm T C 15:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak rename to List of fictional atheists to be in line with List of fictional Catholics and List of fictitious Jews. Problem with that is that you'd need to rewrite the whole thing after that. The current version seems full of debatable statements about what TV shows are atheist or not.--T. Anthony 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per nomination & Danntm Cornell Rockey 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I started the page, and I'd like to point out that Wikipedia already had a Category:Fictional atheists before I made my page. Why didn't that get deleted? I incorporated all names in that Category list. It's a good page, but I admit that I list some works in the first few sections that can be removed. Still, if you have 'List of fictional jews' and 'list of fictional catholics', you can have a fucking list of fictional atheists. And no, to address the question above, you can't just list a character if he/she never expressed belief in god- you have to cite an example of the char. saying something atheist or the like.


 * If you guys delete this page while allowing 'list of fictional catholics' or 'list of fictional jews', it'll seem like Wikipedia is biased against atheism. Why allow those two pages if you aren't going to allow mine? Because fictional atheists aren't relevant enough?


 * Fucking religiously-biased fuckers. I thought Wikipedia was above that shit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrewdt85 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Comment: Please note that nominator is an atheist, and anti-atheist bias was not a motivation for nomination, but rather concern over the original research content of the list, which is counter to Wikipedia's policy. A list of fictional atheists might be appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but the list as currently written violates WP:NOR. Deletion or a drastic rewrite with proper sourcing is needed. Nick Graves 21:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if properly sourced. This is the kind of thing that during CfD we tend to say "delete category and listify". If every name on the list is properly referenced with an external source identifying the character as an atheist, then it can stay. Don't just pick sources that interpret the characters as atheist. We need to know that the original source of the characters clearly identify them as such. Otherwise, you'll also get into an atheist-or-agnostic debate about each. Doczilla 20:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - even a cursory glance demonstrates that this article is entirely unsourced OR and based only on one or more authors' impressions of what might or might not be "atheistic in nature." - Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 22:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that for something to be verifiable, it means that a person can go look in a book or other media and see that the info is true. On the page, I claim that certain characters say certain things in episodes of certain shows- a person reading it could go check for themselves if they wished. So why do I need to link to the proof for it to be verifiable? It's not like every fact in every article of Wikipedia has a cite to go along with it- some info is just stated, because the author knows people can go find the support for the info in a book or other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewdt85 (talk • contribs)
 * Andrewdt85, the problem is not that the things you cite aren't true. No one doubts that in X episode of Family Guy, Y character said Z.  However, what you have done in this article is synthesized a lot of statements, events, and sources into an interpretation that is not, in and of itself, verifiable in third party sources.- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - almost entirely OR, unsourced. Needs a major re-write, which, given the attitude display here by those concerned with editing it, will never happen.  --Haemo 04:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to list of atheists for notable atheist characters. IMHO, a single page would be better maintained and be more clearly focused. Requiring sources or cleanup is not a criteria for deletion, only for improvement of the article. --h2g2bob 05:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:NOR was the primary concern here, and is a criterion for deletion of an article. Lack of sources is not a criterion for deletion of an article, but it is grounds for deletion of any material within an article that remains unsourced. If the article were merged, the vast majority of it would be deleted from List of atheists for being unsourced. I agree that potential content on fictional atheists would be better maintained on the main list, at least until size concerns justify splitting the list. Nick Graves 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. Even if the OR were removed (essentially removing the content of the article), a list stemming from this topic is stupid and unmanageable.  The existence of similar stupid and unmanageable lists elsewhere on wikipedia is an argument for deletion of those, not for retention of this.--OinkOink 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep If there can be a List of fictional Catholics and List of fictitious Jews, why not atheists? Seems pretty biased to me. I say that if you don't keep, then you must delete this, and List of fictional Catholics, List of fictitious Jews and any similar articles. Obviously this article needs significant cleanup, but that isn't ground for deletion. A merge with List of atheists is also a possibility, but then you'd have to merge fictional catholics to list of catholics, etc. Arnesh 04:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I reiterate that the primary grounds for deletion is the original research content of the article, which is a criterion for deletion in Wikipedia policy. I don't think anyone here has objected to creation of a List of fictional atheists that is not original research and which is well-sourced. There is no double standard. If List of fictional Catholics and List of fictitious Jews were primarily composed of original research, they would be appropriate candidates for deletion too. Merging of the small amount of properly sourced content of the List of Atheist fictional characters with the main List of atheists is in no a way binding precedent for merger of other lists of fictional religious adherents with lists of real-life religious adherents. If kept, significant cleanup of this list would involve deletion of most of the material. Nick Graves 17:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no really reason to delete.Biophys 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, there are reasons to delete, given above. I take it you disagree with all of them. Can you elaborate on why you think the given reasons are invalid? Nick Graves 00:24, 13 February 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.


 * Comment: so I see that you deleted the article, even after I removed the OR in the first handful of stupid categories at the top of the page. Fine, then you must now delete the catholic and agnostic fictional character lists. Otherwise, you are favoring non-atheist lists. That wasn't your intention, but that is what you are doing. So delete those now, please. Andrewdt85 22:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)