Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional barefoot 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 WP:SNOW delete (Non-admin closing debate). Seraphim&hearts;  Whipp 10:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

List of fictional barefoot characters

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Listcruft at perhaps its worst. An indiscriminate list that cannot possibly verified accurately. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see List of Fictional Barefoot Characters, and I suspect other capitalizations will be added. Accounting4Taste: talk 03:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - super &beta;&epsilon;&epsilon; cat 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Silly list. And it's missing Tom Sawyer. Pburka (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless list, probably unlikely to be more than 10% complete. I mean, would Garfield count? Bugs Bunny? Etc. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Delete Useless, and where is Snuffy Smith?  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably off stealing a chicken, or in jail for the same. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, indiscriminate. hateless 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above comments, a useless list. Does the insistence on the barefootedness of fictional characters ring a bell with anyone else with respect to a banned user named User:Creepy Crawler?  I wish I could remember what I read somewhere about this.  Accounting4Taste: talk 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- No, I'm told it's probably a sockpuppet of User:BorisTheBlade. FYI.  Accounting4Taste: talk 19:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for complete inability to be maintained meaningfully; a lot of fictional characters go barefoot from time to time. Where do we draw the line? Janet Leigh's character in Psycho was barefoot for her most famous scene (being killed in the shower). Does she qualify? Who can say? --Ig8887 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly pointless. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 03:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I suppose it could be done right, taking account of the various possible roles (for example, most of the people here are barefoot as part of their fight styles); but a list of famous barefoot characters that omits the hobbits isn't worth the effort of saving.  DGG (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete completely useless and random intersection of attributes. Is any character who ever took off their shoes gonna be here?  If they ever put shoes on do they come off?  And what about "Diddle, diddle, dumpling, my son John?"  Could he be halfway on the list? But, if we do keep it, we must include Raindancer Smurf and Peace Pipe Smurf. Oh, and what about porn stars who play a recurring fictional character?  I mean they are barefoot, after all.JERRY talk contribs 04:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because the list constitutes original research unless a third-party source can be provided for the entries. The inclusion criteria are also unclear. I don't see this ever meeting the three core Wikipedia content standards (V, NOR, NPOV). *** Crotalus *** 05:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this doesn't make sense from an organizational standpoint, a navigational standpoint, or a content standpoint. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete as an indiscriminate list. No more needs to be said. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and block user for pretty much saying he will get the article in no matter what (check his edit history). JuJube (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete To be fair, it does give a criteria of sorts: characters known to walk barefoot--so those not wearing shoes in shower or bed scenes wouldn't apply. That said, I don't see this as a particularly encyclopedic list, although possibly not totally out of the question as a category. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Utterly purposeless.  Is there an advantage to this organization of this facet?  No.  Is there a movement toward barefoot writing?  No.  Is there a hidden social construct visible in the little piggies of Tom Sawyer and Jim?  No.  Should we keep this?  No.  Utgard Loki (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:SNOW. I have to admit that it's entertaining that this list ever existed to begin with, but there is absolutely no reason why this belongs on Wikipedia. --Kajerm (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the author's work in assembling this, but it's one of the stranger lists I've ever encountered here. If all else fails, merge to foot fetish, where it might be inspirationsl Mandsford (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for so many reasons already mentioned. Besides, where are all the cavemen and Hobbits?  (It's a silly list, so it needs a silly reason to be deleted). –   j ak s mata  21:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as pointless cruft. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Walking barefoot" is not a common theme which makes characters remarkably similar to one another, making a list like this rather arbitrary. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:57, 13 February 2008 (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.