Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional archenemies


 * 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 Delete. It's my opinion that nobody provided a sound rationale to counter the concerns of original research. Other concerns such as listcruft and not directory were less convincing, but swayed my analysis towards deletion. All things considered, the list is too poorly defined and too wide in scope to be particularly encyclopaedic and a good number of the keep !votes revolved around weak arguments such as WP:USEFUL. While I'm sure it is useful, as that essay says, almost anything is useful in context, but usefulness is, for better or worse, not the basis on which we decide what to include in Wikipedia. I've a feeling this may be contentious so Deletion Review is that way if anybody wants to appeal this decision. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional archenemies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is full of Original Research and lacks Verifiability. The subject of X (example only) being an archenemy of Y in fiction can be entirely speculative. And if you look in the it's talk page you see it is an mess with links. I used to like an idea of an article about this subject but it's going too far. Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions.  Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Jhenderson777 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - besides being full of WP:OR, this list would end up being utterly unmaintainable. I can't fathom the number of arch-nemeses there are, and who would argue what is and what isn't. --Teancum (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep; looks like there are several sources cited. Not everything is cited, granted, but it's certainly possible to restrict the list to only cited examples and still have a reasonably useful list.  Powers T 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The list will not be long enough to warrant a separate article once the unsourced material is trimmed. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dated comment as more and more items in the list become sourced.Trackinfo (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Its full of original research Dwanyewest (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, all interpretation of meaning within literature is merely an opinion. However with the number of other sources expressing that same opinion, other people concur.  In WP terms we can now call that, sourced.Trackinfo (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete You could theoretically write a version of this list that passed all our content policies, but it would suck (especially from a WP:WAF standpoint), and TV Tropes already does it better. Thus, I'd let it fall outside our scope. Nifboy (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is well referenced, with sources including The New York Times and the BBC. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Joshau Isaac. This article only has an few good reliable sources. Now I know you are the one that seperated this article from the archenemy article with all those examples on there and I really believe that was an good idea. But ever since then this article has been full of IP editors thinking they could put whatever in lately. And that ain't cutting it for Wikipedia. I do recommend if anyone wants this article to stay, keep only the ones that are well sourced and keep an sharp watch or semi-protect this article. It also might work if there is an sandbox or something for this article to use sort of like an recycling center for the rivalries that isn't well sourced until there can be an good source for them. But for right now I think we should probably just start over in the archenemy article since it is basically an small article and TV Tropes already proved you can use lists of rivralies in an article specifically talking about archenemy. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Joshua Issac. The sourced material should not be deleted, it should be preserved. However, a separate article may not be the best place yet. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - this are is a WP:OR nightmare. We've kicked the subject around on individual cases and it can be a tricky beast (Googling the character and "archenemy") isn't enough as it has to be an authoritative source and such things aren't easy to find, just because someone says X is an archenemy of Y it doesn't mean they are. Also in serial fiction like comics this can change to suit the story and so may not even be fixed (as they aren't real). Add a link from archenemy to the TV Tropes site if anyone wants to read up on such things. (Emperor (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete Even though it may be doable to skip around the OR issue in more prominent examples, that's unlikely to be the case the moment you stray from the most obvious examples, it doesn't explain why it's necessary to have a list containing all the big bads from pretty much everything yanked out of context and chucked into a barrel. The concept itself, fair game for an article and some examples would be good, but more specific lists like List of X-Men villains and List of Punisher enemies would do a better job. Truth be told, in most cases categories would be just as effective and require a fraction of the maintainence. Someoneanother 01:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Categories have no way of placing the enemies and their antagonists together on one page. Polarpanda (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no need to. As a handful of examples on the archenemy article that would work because they would point the reader to articles where they could read-up about those specific examples. Continued across every fiction on a list then the only reason their counterpart's would need to be mentioned is because the list would be too broad by a mile. The categories I was referring to are the likes of Golden Age supervillains, DC Comics supervillains etc (taken from Joker (comics)), or counterparts to List of X-Men villains. The whole idea of rolling-out archnemesis as a meaningful classification is flawed IMO, taking what may or may not be a character's archnemesis and plonking them into a list doesn't tell the reader a damn thing about the fiction they have been removed from. Someoneanother 16:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - An article could be made on this topic, so let it sit until someone whips it into shape. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on this topic is Archenemy. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the same reasons that List of fictional swords has been kept: just because it's a drive-by magnet and a mess, doesn't mean that a well-sourced, non-indiscriminate article on the subject can't exist. Cleanup, obviously, doesn't require deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The List of fictional swords did not have a Fictional sword article and the better entries could only be preserved by keeping the list. This is not the case here. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unmaintainably large (potentially thousands of entries), and the inclusion criteria is not objectively defined. Archenemies are confused with arch-nemeses and general antagonists. Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, restricting entries to those citing reliable sources will take care of problems of size and indiscriminacy. Polarpanda (talk) 12:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced entries into Archenemy. Most of the list is no more than subjective OR. The few sourced entries can be merged back into Archenemy with no prejudice of recreation should there be enough material. I highly doubt that this list will be long enough to warrant a current separate article after removal of all unsourced and poorly sourced material. I suspect this list ended up from few good entries into "everyone adds their favourite work's archenemy". This is no way to build lists. — Hellknowz ▎talk 13:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suggestion – would splitting into separate lists by type (e.g. video games, novels, comics, etc.) help reduce the "indiscriminate nature" with one huge list? –MuZemike 17:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I admit. I don't hate the suggestion. It's just that I am not completely sure about it either. Not all of the certain sections are big enough to be an article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, there are enough "parent" articles to fit the smaller sections? — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a very useful list which I will bookmark. The concept of archenemies is an essential element to the fictional writing I do professionally and this is a valid list to point students to.   I support the concept of sub-referencing in that, while perhaps every entry in this article is not individually sourced, if you trace to the referenced internal link, you see the article that DOES reference the information.  That discounts the Original Research and Verifiability claim.  If the complainants have a problem with fulfilling the laborious requirements of listing a source for every statement, then they can spend their time transferring the sources from all the numerous sub-referenced pages.  In the mean time, don't mess with deleting useful articles.Trackinfo (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you already seen in my comment I did like an article about this particular subject and I have had this as my watchlist for quite an while. But fixing it was getting tiresome. I do agree if we just stick to the well sourced ones and leave it to that we should get an halfway decent article. Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It looks like a pointless article. Is this list even complete? The Pebble Dare (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you actually look at the first part of the article it says it may never be complete. Meaning there can be a always be an new rivalry to add. Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. It will never be complete, it can only be kept maintained by limiting to sourced entries. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as a list of independently notable, duly sourced archenemies.  This can be a valuable and interesting list, and it's a good example of the kind of encyclopedic organization that Wikipedia can do better than print media.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Only few entries are duly sourced. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Links to other Wikipedia articles, and is a good category to sort things through. List articles are easier to look through and use than categories though.  Other information can perhaps be added as well, such as their first year of conflict, or reasons why they are archenemies.   D r e a m Focus  22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what the Archenemy article is mainly for. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that article exists to explain the concept of what an archenemy is. It will not be listing all of these things there.  They belong in a list article.  Just like List of US presidents is separate from US presidents.   D r e a m Focus  23:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but the article uses examples of reasons why certain characters are archenemies. I also think the article Archenemy can also be good for talking about history of famous rivalries.Something it's lacking of really. I think your idea could work if it was anything like TV Tropes way of doing it. But keep in mind the list article is already long. Jhenderson777 (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The president articles are much, much longer that the article in question. And they are sourced. Every single entry has 4 reliable references. This list is unsourced undue content split. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All of these could easily be sourced. All the Marvel comic book characters are listed on the official Marvel site, listing who is who's archenemy in various places.  The other comic book companies can be searched as well.  You can also search the names of those listed with the word "archenemy" in it, and see what Google news/books/whatever can find.  I'll go add a few sources now to demonstrate how easy it is, if anyone actually cared for such things.  If you sincerely doubt any of the information provided, then tag it with a citation needed.   D r e a m Focus  15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt most of it, I doubt that at present there are enough volunteers to properly reference the entries to adhere to verifiability. Also, I am not going to tag every unsourced entry with cn just to show my point :P. I already expressed that I am happy to keep/merge this into parent article, I just doubt it deserves it's own article. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:UNDUE. Also, I noticed that all the users saying "keep" are saying so simply because the article is useful. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ditto. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A good many times, I am against deletion of any article because some articles are simply bad becuase of lazy contributors. Here, this would definitely not be the case. Just scanning over the article, it is largely incomplete. I believe it would require the entire population of Wikipedians to even begin to make this article acceptable. First, many rivalries in fiction can get quite confusing. Since it's a topic i'm familiar with, I'll use the Mortal Kombat series as an example.
 * Noob Saibot is not the archenemy of Scorpion, he is the enemy of the original Sub-Zero, the character Noob Saibot, although a reincarnation of the original Sub-Zero, has not even met Scorpion in the first place to be considered an archenemy.

Confusing right? Cases like this are strewn about the entire Mortal Kombat series, and with a cast of about 60 characters we would have to find a reliable source for each and every rivalry considered to exist within the series. And if that is done so for one section, then it will most likely be done for all sections of the article leading to an unreadable mess. IF the rivalry is notable, and references can be found then place it in the prose of the characters' respective articles (if the characters themselves are even notable to begin with) such as the rivalry between Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  —Jhenderson777 (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: wikipedia is not a directory. having a vague list like this makes it impossible to avoid original research. this list has uncited material, material cited to unreliable sources, and citations that don't even verify "archenemies" at all. That's why we have more specific lists like List of villains in The Batman. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And splitting the list, as you suggest, like folders within categories, makes finding the information that much more difficult without a much more determined and/or informed search. If you can make a subject-specific list, I'm all for that.  But a universal list like this serves as another way to make things findable.  Whether you feel any individual case is exactly correct, might be a matter of opinion.  I've got many additional cases to add to this article, as I'm sure others will too.  There is plenty of room for further improvement.  A list like this sparks the discussion and with the plethora of internal links, it provides a way for one to carry out further research which gives much greater clarity to each specific situation.  Keeping this article hurts nothing.  Deleting this article cuts off a useful tool.Trackinfo (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created an user draft for this article to save what might be useful information if it gets deleted. If it could possibly go somewhere else here I don't want the useful parts lost forever. You decide where it belongs. It's the least that I could do since some people want it to stay for this reason. Jhenderson777 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making an effort to save the page--its not an innovation I had previously considered. I'm not sure how it would be found by a member of the public (who would have to know the article exists and that it has been saved elsewhere) without significant effort.  What frustrates me by the WP deletionists is why we need to fear their actions; their overzealous efforts to delete potentially useful articles.  Without diligent oversight, ANY article can easily disappear in a mere 7 days.  Personally, I don't have the time to keep checking that many AfD articles to see what might be under attack.  Yet these people scour WP to find anything they can attack and remove.  They love to get their brownie points for successfully deleting articles.  Once an article is gone--ITS GONE.  The public, the world, all but a few super secret elite administrators can never see it, never find it, never improve upon whatever might be wrong with the article.  So I noticed this one.  I cast my vote.  I'm not alone in voting support.  You'd think that should be sufficient to save the article, but no.  This article could still disappear as soon as somebody, some administrator, decides that consensus has been reached to delete it.  A relative handful of deletionists, despite the objections of others, can just make things disappear for everybody far to easily.Trackinfo (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yess.. We deletes the articles for brownie points.. We scours and we seeks for our super secret administrator masters.. WP:USERFY and WP:INCUBATE are not an innovation. WP:AADD arguments are usually ignored and as this is WP:NOTAVOTE. You make it sound like any editor who expresses valid reasons for why the article does not meet WP inclusion criteria is a deletionist. Rather that criticizing methods of others or the system, you should provide valid arguments for inclusion other than WP:ITSUSEFUL. — Hellknowz ▎talk 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way since I created the userspace draft for it. Please discuss with what can be done about most of it in the discussion page for it because I won't probably keep the user space draft forever. The only thing that i can think to do is merge the sourced ones on Archenemy but still all opinions welcome, Thank you! Jhenderson777 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, #1 is to delete everything without a citation. #2 would be to find (copy from main article or somewhere else) citations for entries we want to keep. #3 would be either update the current list in claim of proper verification or merge into Archenemy where few objections should arise. — Hellknowz ▎talk 21:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I got you. Here's where the general discussion of this should be at and here's where it could be fixed any way you like it such as deleting the ones that don't have citations and etc. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Archenemy. Not all of the list is WP:OR as there are reliable sources provided, so at least some of it is verifiable and salvageable (just not the majority of it). There does not appear to be, however, a valid reason for this to have its own article, as it is not independetly notable nor is the parent article so large that it needed split out for readability (in contrast to Dream Focus's presumable example of President of the United States and List of Presidents of the United States above). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- because this encyclopedia is not a directory, because there's hardly any sources and significant original research is needed to bring this up to any sort of useful completeness, and because it's cruft. Reyk  YO!  23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Forty sources are more than just "hardly any". --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The subject of archenemies is already qell covered at Archenemy. As others have noted, this list is primarily WP:OR with only a few actually sourcable examples, and goes against WP:NOT, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:WAF, and WP:UNDUE. Such a list is completely unmaintainable as it is unendinging and inherently indiscriminate. The main article already has appropriate, discrete examples, in context, without excessive detail.  --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Source, trim, and then decide what to do. Looking at the anime and manga section (the area I am most failure with), I do not see a single reliable source. I did see one source to an earlier version of Archenemies, but I've already removed it since it is a circular reference. I also don't see the term "archenemy" used when and I find many of the listings dubious at best. I had to laugh about Bandit Keith being listed as Joey Wheeler's archenemy, the pair only meet once. The list also confuses rivalries with enemies, examples Yugi Mutou and Seto Kaiba, Amuro Ray and Char Aznable, and Goku and Vegeta. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as too broad in scope - Per WP:SALAT - "Lists that are [..] too broad in scope have little value." This list is of potentially infinite scope and therefore must be too broad.  "List of fictional DC comics archenemies" would be an appropriate list, by comparison.  As a side argument, note that a featured list "comprehensively covers the defined scope"; is there any value in permitting a list to remain that is by definition incapable of achieving the featured list criteria? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Archenemy, with some trimming done during the merge. Spidey  104 contribs 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's see, we can't say its a useful list, even though it is. It would be stupid to merge this to the master article, this list of examples is way too long and would have to be spun off, which somebody already did.  It looks like it has plenty of sourcing, especially considering this sort of categorization is all subjective.  It might seem like Origninal research, but there are a lot of supporting opinions.  Very few Red links, leading to supporting documentation and discussion.  And it would be stupid to destroy this much, oh I'm going to say it, useful information.  If you have to delete something, do it on a line by line basis.Sarcasto (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if the list is too broad, break it down to a bunch of lists under the categories already in place. I've even got another category that will fill up the page more:  in Professional Wrestling.  That will be a huge article in itself.Sarcasto (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between including verifiable entries and having it "look plenty sourced considering it is subjective material". What are these supporting opinions you mention? How does redlink absence indicate anything? The list is only this long because poorly sourced OR is constantly added and the meaning of archenemy arbitrarily broadened. "It is useful" is not a valid argument; and this is how the list looks trimmed case-by-case. — Hellknowz ▎talk 01:35, 2 June 2010 (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.