Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of comic strip villain debuts


 * 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. WjBscribe 21:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of comic strip villain debuts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Doesn't seem relevant enough to be in Wikipedia. It only has villains from one comic strip. Joiz A|A. Shmo 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I extracted this info from List of supervillain debuts, when it was nominated for AfD and kept, because there was so much of it. You could merge it back, but it there's so much of it, it should really have it's own page.  Rename it list of Dick Tracy villain debuts if you like.  No one cares about DT stuff anymore, but it was crazy notable back in the day. - Peregrine Fisher 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 06:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If kept, either expand content or rename to reflect actual contents. No stance on deletion. -- saberwyn 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I moved it to List of Dick Tracy villain debuts to better reflect its contents. - Peregrine Fisher 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this page is now a redirect, I think this needs to be closed, and dealt with at Redirects for discussion instead. The content itself, namely the debut dates of Dick Tracy villains is more than sufficiently encyclopedic information.  Or do you have some real problem with the subject of the article? FrozenPurpleCube 16:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not encyclopaedic in nature. Fancruft.--Bryson 02:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to explain why the debut dates of characters in a major comic strip aren't encyclopedic in nature? Are you going to advocate the deletion of numerous similar articles?  And please don't use the term fancruft, it's offensive.  Thanks!  FrozenPurpleCube 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Fancruft. Fancruft has become a regular term on Wikipedia, applying to any information that is relevant to fans, but not so much on its own.  And, as is mentioned bellow, if the villains don't have their own articles, they probably don't need an entire article dedicated to their appearance dates. Joiz A|A. Shmo 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've seen that page. It's an essay, and I would prefer if the advise against using the term were written in much stronger language, and I wish that fewer people would slap that derogatory term around as if it were a convincing argument.  And some of the villains do have their own articles.  Should all of them?  I don't know, that's another issue.  Besides, there are many things which don't deserve their own article in the individual, but are more notable in the aggregate.  FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Fancruft I am saying the article is not notable.--Bryson 03:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the article isn't notable, it's a single article on Wikipedia. Very few of them are notable. But what's wrong with the subject of the article?  Do you think Dick Tracy isn't notable?  Do you think that the villains of the strip aren't notable as a whole?  Should the ones with individual articles be deleted?  Should all dates of initial appearance be deleted from every article about comic characters?   Sorry, but just saying "This isn't notable, it's fancruft" is not persuasive reasoning, it's just using a pejorative.  Could you please try explaining in more detail exactly what you consider is not encyclopedic about this article's subject, without making use of that term?  I would much appreciate it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I added some citations and references, to establish notability, and allow people to double check all the dates if they want. - Peregrine Fisher 05:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Dick Tracy is very notable, some/many of the villains are notable as well, but what is the point of an article that lists the date of their first appearance? The question is not if these villains are notable, but if the dates of their first appearance on its own is notable. This list says nothing but "there are a lot of villains, they were all created by the creator of the comic (duh) except one, seventeen years later, and ... well, that's about it". This list is furthermore redundant with List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy, which gives a lot more information (even though it needs a lot of work as well). Fram 11:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I would say that this list is incomplete, since obviously it stops relatively short of the modern era. Thus the various people who took over after Gould are unlisted.  Incompleteness, note, is not a reason for deletion.  If it were, we'd have to delete a lot more pages. It's just a reason for somebody to finish the article.  I don't see how the dates of first appearance aren't notable though, since that information is included on pretty much every page about a comic book or strip character.  So as a whole, I don't see that as a problem.  And yes, I did notice that this page is somewhat redundant to List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy, but the more I think about it, the more I think something else besides deletion needs to be done.  That page has a section describing first appearances, but it's much more poorly formatted than even this page.  I think it might be worth splitting off the villains from that page, merging it with the information from this one instead.  Deletion, however, seems needless.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I wish this page was fancruft in a way, it would have more editors. Dick Tracy isn't a fan hotbed, it's a historically significant comic strip.  Maybe 50 years ago it would have been fancruft, now it's just encyclopedic. - Peregrine Fisher 19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge into List of recurring characters in Dick Tracy. The content is valuable, but there's no reason these shouldn't be streamlined into the same article -- it would improve both of them. ~CS 21:33, 4 April 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.