Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female action heroes


 * 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. –MuZemike 22:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

List of female action heroes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

List fails WP:LSC. The list has no defineable criteria for inclusion, save the claim that each is an "action hero". The list is largely unsourced and simply a listing of names in many sections. The whole designation of someone as an "action hero" is fairly POV and opinion anyway, but without reliable sources, it's OR. This list is a mishmash of media ranging from a character in an anciet Persian poem (Gordafaried) to a character in a non-notable book written by a non-notable author (Princess Annwyl) to calling Lt. Uhura an "action hero". In the end, little more than a random list of characters editors decided to put on the list I think the existing list would have to be gutted completely and re-written almost from scratch. See the related WP:Articles for deletion/List of male action heroes Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Originally, this list was part of List of action heroes. It was split into male and female lists and the original article is now a single line article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per WP:IINFO. Ipsign (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per WP:LISTN. Per books cited in the further reading section of the article, the topic appears to have been discussed as a group. The topic also appears to be covered conceptually in these sources. Examples (from the further reading section of article) include – Hopkins, Susan, Girl Heroes: the New Force in Popular Culture, Pluto Press Australia, 2002, Inness, Sherrie A. (ed.) Action Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999 and Heinecken, Dawn. Warrior Women of Television: A Feminist Cultural Analysis of the New Female Body in Popular Media, New York: P. Lang, 2003. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The list fails to have an inclusion criteria. Many of the entries are simply an editors opinion that a woman is a "superhero". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Such should be removed, but the list should be kept. JORGENEV  23:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tough to decide what can be removed from a list that has no criteria on what should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

*Delete - POV list. Moving to neutral - without the actresses the characters names (I removed them) seem less POV assertions, I still have issues with OR, a cited action hero? the answer seems mostly to be a matter of opinion - Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep But could lose the actresses as it is the character the list is meant to represent.REVUpminster (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just the actresses? How about the lack of criteria, the OR and the abysmal lack of sources? If everything like that was removed, there would hardly be an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the actresses. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

 The way in which we divide the topic between this and related articles such as action hero is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As synthesis. Completely arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria. Fails both WP:LSC and WP:NLIST in every respect, since RS hasn't been applied or even asserted (as it applies to inclusion). I also don't understand how User:Northamerica1000 can so completely misread WP:NOT as WP:NOTE. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is quite notable being covered in numerous books such as:
 * 1) The action hero in popular Hollywood and Hong Kong movies
 * 2) Gender schema theory and the tough female action-hero
 * 3) Super bitches and action babes: the female hero in popular cinema
 * 4) The female action hero in film
 * 5) Cartooning action heroes
 * 6) The Action Hero Handbook
 * 7) The Real Action Hero Manual
 * 8) Female action heroes: a guide to women in comics, video games, film, and television
 * 9) Television in Transition: The Life and Afterlife of the Narrative Action Hero


 * Keep - The current list is pretty crappy. There's no stated inclusion criteria, but the title of the list implies one, and the topic of female action heroes is certainly a valid one.  The mess of entries needs pruning and sourcing.  But as a list topic, this seems certainly viable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I see ARS riding in to save something else that they likely won't do more than some token edits on. Warden lists a bunch of sources, but didn't bother to add a single one. As I said all along, THIS article is crap. It needs completely gutted and started over. Could there be a good one on the topic? Maybe, but not as long as this one exists because people will look at this mess and say forget it. Sometimes it's better to start with a blank slate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly I see someone attacking the ARS yet again. The AFD exist to determine if the article subject is notable, nothing else.  AFD is not cleanup.  And why would it be easier to start with a blank slate than to use what various editors have contributed over time?   D r e a m Focus  17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This subject gets coverage, as Warden pointed out already.  D r e a m Focus  17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might question why ARS gets "attacked" so much. Regardless, your question of why is it easier to start with a clean slate? When you paint something, it's better to remove the old paint and rust first, isn't it. You end up with a better finished product. There was no work done over time. There is a mishmash of names thrown in with no sourcing and a boatload of OR. This is a lost cause anyway......now that ARS has made it a pet cause, there is no way it will get deleted. I've gone ahead and removed the unsourced entries. Entries to the list should have a reliable source calling them an "action hero". No OR, no SYNTH.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It is much easier to be destructive than constructive on wikepedia with lists here's another one: List of superheroines and there are plenty more. REVUpminster (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also easy to !vote to keep everything, make a token edit or two, then leave essentially the same steaming pile that was there before. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists they give an example List of fictional dogs which is not much different from what was here except the mistake here was NOT to put the further reading as the reference section. Lists are only an "index" to the article or if red to a likely article where the references should be. But it is all in the eye of the editor as there seems to be hundreds of lists that could be deleted.REVUpminster (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: Inappropriate topic for Wikipedia per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists, since this list falls into what Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). The list does not appear to have a selection criteria that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The content itself is created with original research by synthesis as no reliable secondary source appears to have such a list. None of the sources provided shows an actual list of female action heroes, only mentions from primary sources or unreliable ones. As the subject of the list as presented in the article has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, I also do not believe that the the topic meets the general notability guideline and since notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the article is original research by synthesis, I believe that it should be deleted . Jfgslo (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2011 (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.