Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; &tau;&omicron; m&epsilon;) 14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients
Article cannot be comprehensive and is of no worthwhile use Ed 19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It was interesting to read, from the perspective of a moviegoer. Does it need to be anything else?  I don't think comprehensiveness is a reasonable test, even for lists.  A scant few articles here feature all the information in existence about their topic.  Aguerriero  ( ţ ) ( ć ) ( ë ) 19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Rklawton 20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's got Raymond Shaw, so I'm happy. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as unencyclopedic listcruft (which, as an aside, could never be considered comprehensive). I can't believe the reasons two people above have for keeping this article. An article being interesting or including a certain person (I could create an article called "list of people" and put Raymond Shaw on it, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic) does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. -- Kicking222 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit) In fact, how about this: I'm going to make a new article, and call it "A List of Fictional People which will be Interesting to Read and Include Characters from The Manchurian Candidate" and see if it goes up for deletion. I'm sorry- I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I do believe that everyone has their right to an opinion; still, the above reasons do not even qualify as "reasons" for voting keep. -- Kicking222 20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A list of fictional people interesting to read about is not a concrete topic; a list of fictional medal of honor winners is an actual subject, to movie buffs and those interested in the medal. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see this really adding anything to WP. No good "keep" reasons yet - being "interesting to read" is not a valid reason, nor is the "Raymond Shaw" reason.  Wickethewok 20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just not an encyclopedia article.  It's just not, and it doesn't matter how interesting people think it is. Brian G. Crawford 21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * very weak keep On one hand, I feel that lists are getting out of control. On the other, I've seen lists that are worse and kept. Roodog2k 22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * delete on the other hand, making the world a better place begins somewhere. Roodog2k 17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (actually would prefer it as a category, easier to make it comprehensive). "of no worthwhile use" is not a valid reason for deletion, and it seems to be an interesting thing to keep track of. JoshuaZ 23:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I like the idea of making it into a category, but most of the people on the list do not have their own pages. So keep it.  It borders on listcruft in that the number of people interested in this is probably limited, but that's hard to quantify.  --Joelmills 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, per the many good reasons above and the abject lack of any good reason (and yes, I did look at the article itself). Fluit 02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless, random, unencyclopedic list. Eusebeus 02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's nothing unencyclopedic about a list, per se, nor about fictional characters, nor in fact about a list of fictional characters that meet some criterion.  Of course, it can never be complete, but no article can ever be perfect; so what?  The list contains valid information that's neutral, verifiable, and not original research (keeping in mind that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is . . . strongly encouraged").  That it may be of limited interest is irrelevant; piezoelectric microbalances are also likely of limited interest.  And as for notability, that doesn't worry me. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unmaintainable, and demeaning to actual MoH recipients. --- GWO
 * Categorise, as below. -- GWO
 * Keep, although I would have no objections to the list being scrapped in favor of a category. Sorting fictional characters in this way is useful, although I think a category would be more useful than a list. NoIdeaNick 10:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists with well-specified criteria for inclusion are OK in my book. I'd only use 'incomplete'/'not possible to complete' as a reason to delete if the number of items was so vast that the list couldn't possibly be more than a random selection. I don't believe that's the case here. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - if we need to compromise, I would vote in favor of a category instead of a list. Wickethewok 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Started as part of the Medal of Honor article which is now a featured article. Its still linked and provides good material. -Husnock 20:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: so much of Wikipedia is pure pop culture, why target this topic? What's wrong with a list showing how a symbol such as the MOH has been appropriated and mediated in the culture? A list of (largely familiar) fictional recipients is as interesting to many readers as a list of (largely unknown) actual recipients.
 * Delete as original research and listcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete although I don't find it really harmful, I see no point for it. --Arny 02:44, 6 May 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.