Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters missing an appendage




 * 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.

I have considered the discussion and the page in question: a delete verdict it is, for reasons best summed up by User:Khoikhoi. — Encephalon 05:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional characters missing an appendage
Because ... uh ... WTF!!??!? Just look at it! --Aaron 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Lists are important enough to wikipedia to have their own official guidelines. This list should be kept because a) the content is notable and verifiable and b) it meets the guidelines as spelled out in WP:LIST.  Besides, WTF, regardless of how many random punctuation marks follows it, is not a valid reason for deletion. --Jayron32 05:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:LIST, of course, is largely a style guide that says little to nothing about what sorts of lists are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. By Jayron32's standards, any list about anything would get a speedy keep as long as it was formatted correctly. As for me being a little lighthearted in in nomination, guilty as charged. The reason for the nom is self-evident. --Aaron 05:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, only lists whose content is notable and verifiable should be included. This meets both tests.  Consider the following from Lists_%28stand-alone_lists%29: "' If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.).'"
 * by analogy, a list of fictional characters would be too long. This is merely a listing of fictional characters by a notable trait.  This is hardly a normally deletion worthy article.  Check the history.  It has dozens of editors and dates back over 2 years.  If the page was not useful, it would not show this kind of activity.  The list article has proved its usefulness by that standard.  Oh, and nothing at wikipedia is self-evident.  If you want to delete, make a point that shows this information is a) not notable b) not verifiable or c) redundant.  If none of these apply, the article has no reason to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Looking at this list, it's simply a lot of characters that share an arbitrary trait. There is nothing to be said about them. You cannot draw any sort of connection that helps one understand their encyclopaedic notability. As it stands, it just exists for the sake of documenting minutiae - not a good thing. I would contrast this with, say, List of fictional pirates, which can be used to draw connections among and typify the portrayal of pirates in fictional works, or something of that nature. This list helps little to not at all with such matters. GassyGuy 07:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: At first, I thought this list might have originally been created as a, uhh, "service" for those with Amputee fetishism. But given that the list skews heavily toward comic-book characters and sci-fi movie heroes who had their limbs replaced with better ones, I can't even figure out what an amputee fetishist would get out of this list. --Aaron 14:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Categorize and Delete Danny Lilithborne 08:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Categorize and Delete categorize for those who might need it for some other article. Delete per WP:NOT indiscriminate information. Mitaphane talk 08:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or Categorize. I find lists of this sort quite fascinating, and not necessarily arbitrary. Of encyclopaedic use for anyone researching disability in fiction, for example. David L Rattigan 10:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete in agreement with GassyGuy; I'm not in favor of a category but it would be better than this list. Barno 13:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as I concur with GassyGuy.--Isotope23 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitary criteria. "It's useful" is not a valid argument. Interrobamf 14:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually, "It's useful" is a valid supporting argument, if used to mean "it helps readers make encyclopedic use of the article". But "usefulness" by itself doesn't get a topic past core inclusion policies like WP:V or WP:NOR.  Barno 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. These categories are ridiculous. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 15:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT Tom Harrison Talk 16:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * delete per Tom Harrison DesertSky85451 17:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per GazzyGuy. I find too many unencyclopedic "articles" are shrouded in the guideline of WP:LIST despite their failure to meet the policy in WP:NOT, as this list does. Agent 86 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Categorize per Agent 86. Vectro 18:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a useless article. Fictonal people is understandable, but ones with missing legs, arms, ect? --ASDFGHJKL 20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, but do not categorise. -- saberwyn 23:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete lol. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, but rename to List of fictional amputees. The motif of amputation in fiction is definitely a worthwhile topic, and such a list is comparable to the real-world List_of_amputees. I'd suggest that this list is well within Wikipedia norms, and can become encyclopedic with some editing: its main weakness, as previously noted, is the skew to SF/Fantasy, and its lack of sourcing. Its contents are neutral, verifiable, and its constituents notable. In certain cases, amputation is a core trait to the fictional character (e.g. Captain James Hook or Six Million Dollar Man). This article does not constitute an Indiscriminate collection of Information; it's clear what the requirements for list membership. Further, it fulfills the suggestions of Lists in Wikipedia.-- LeflymanTalk 02:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In certain cases, amputation is a core trait... I agree with that and believe that should be covered in the characters' respective articles; however, in many of these cases, this does not hold up and, again, it's just an arbitrary trait that they share with other characters. It is of little difference from "Fictional characters with long hair" or "Fictional characters who live in mansions." My test is, after reading through the entries in the list, is there a possible reasonable answer to the question "So what?" If the answer is yes, there is likely an encyclopaedic use for this list. If the answer is either no or is a contrived, strecthed sort of case, as occurs here, then it probably doesn't belong. GassyGuy 23:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is quite a stretch to compare a permanent condition like amputation with "long hair" or "living in mansions" -- both of these are transitory states, and not a core physical disability, which is always employed by a fictional creator for a specific purpose. Just because a topic or list is relevant or important to you does not make it an invalid article. Would you make the same argument for List_of_people_with_visual_disabilities, which has a section of "Ancient, fictional, and mythological characters"? Or make a similar claim for List_of_Jewish_superheroes? (Which went through its own AfD with a keep consensus.) -- LeflymanTalk 01:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * List of people with visual disabilities - no, I wouldn't make the same sort of argument. List of Jewish superheroes - I don't read comic books and therefore couldn't tell you how the religion aspect plays into them, so I would feel unqualified to offer any sort of opinion. However, I do make the same sort of case by case basis, and I was not saying that I attempted to find relevance to me - I was saying I attempted to find a possible reasonable answer - as in, something that could be relevant to people even if not me personally. Please don't twist my arguments. GassyGuy 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm still not clear how you view a list of fictional characters with visual disabilities as different from a list of fictional amputees? You wrote, "My test is, after reading through the entries in the list..." that's a pretty clear personal discretionary method. The answer to "So what?", as I gave above, is that the motif of amputation is used for a specific purpose by authors; it is not an arbitrary or accidental trait in fiction.-- LeflymanTalk 01:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The amputation of Captain Hook is similar to the amputation of Frodo Baggins which in turn was employed with a similar purpose as the amputation of Thomas Covenant? Sorry, perhaps you can help me with this one? GassyGuy 02:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question -- and if you'll allow me to expound on this rather interesting topic, I hope I can answer the "So what?" to your satisfaction. First to clarify: I wrote "amputation is used for a specific purpose" -- not "similar" purpose. The amputations of the characters you've mentioned are central to their characters and story development. Captain Hook's amputation of his hand by Peter Pan, and the subsequent eating of his appendage by the Crocodile are the core axes of his character's arc: because of this, Hook is set on a vendetta against Peter, and is in turn hunted by the Croc (who found the taste of the hand delicious) -- both of which prove to be his undoing: hook is ultimately defeated by Peter and swallowed whole by the crocodile. In the case of Frodo Baggins, the amputation of his finger, by being bitten off by the Gollum, is the climax to the entire course of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is only through this, that the One Ring is ultimately destroyed. Thereafter, he's called "Frodo of the Nine Fingers" in acknowledgement of his status. Finally, and just as critically, Thomas Covenant was actually created by Stephen Donaldson based on his father's description of experiences with leprosy in India. Covenant's leprosy is discovered after the amputation of his fingers, and becomes the central thread of his struggle to survive. In his first appearance in Lord_Foul%27s_Bane, his amputation is what identifies him as the reincarnation of Berek Halfhand. You may be interested in reading an article from the April 2001 American Psychologist journal, "Creative Cognition, Conceptual Combination, and the Creative Writing of Stephen R. Donaldson ", which notes, "To help himself to avoid the prospect of future amputations, Covenant has developed a rigid discipline of regularly surveying his extremities for injuries... The dynamic tension between the attractions of the fantasy world and Covenant's fear of neglecting the discipline that has kept him well sets the stage for a remarkably compelling story."-- LeflymanTalk 03:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but when you'd said specific, I'd assumed that meant one specific purpose - so, in essence, if I read you correctly, your argument is that these people all have a purpose for having a missing appendage. I never said they didn't. In fact, I'm sorry you wrote all of these explanations, because I not only agree but already found those three amputations important to their respective stories. What I'm saying, however, is that that purpose isn't similar. I think that the missing appendage should be documented in each character's article because it is indeed important. What I am saying is that this list cannot demonstrate much because the purposes and portrayals are starkly different, so that this list, again, becomes a group of characters sharing an arbitrary characteristic. The characteristic is important enough to be documented in the character's articles, sure; but the memebrs of the list are related by any sort of encyclopaedic connection, just a common trait. GassyGuy 03:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you've just acknowledged why this is a notable list: that the amputations are an important part of the fictional characters. However, it's inaccurate to claim that it's an "arbitrary characteristic" -- as you've just pointed out yourself, it's not at all arbitrary. The choice by an author of making a character an amputee is a trait perhaps more significant even than being visual disability in fiction-- amputation becomes a critical element of change for most of the characters, whereas blindness in fictional characters is either inherent from the beginning or a motif of symbolic significance as an outcome for some wrongdoing (e.g. As in Oedipus and later fiction, eyes being plucked out is a popular theme).-- LeflymanTalk 07:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we must be arguing different things. I have never argued against the missing appendage being somehow significant to the character or story - I am saying that there is no actual encyclopedic connection among characters who have missing appendages. You yourself said that the authors' purposes are not similar, just that each individual case has a purpose. What you've given is a very good argument for why missing appendages should be detailed in the individual articles for these characters, and I agree. What I still don't see is any explanation how this list helps to elucidate on characters missing appendages rather than simply collects them indiscriminately. GassyGuy 08:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have a differing understanding of what an "indiscriminate list" is. There's no need for the authors to have exactly the same purpose in making certain characters disabled -- as you have already agreed, the use of amputation by an author is notable, in and of itself. That's what makes it encyclopedic. How is this list indiscriminate -- or any less descriminate than the hundreds of other Lists_of_fictional_things that make up Wikipedia? Perhaps you might apply the same metric to the dozen other articles in the category Lists of fictional characters by medical condition?-- LeflymanTalk 23:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also note that not everyone on this list is an amputee, so they don't even have that in common. GassyGuy 02:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

— Possible single purpose account: 86.140.144.83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Keep Per Leflyman. This category is informative and i think it would have taken a lot of time to find all those amputee characters, its just as notbale as most of the other categories! (Neostinker 10:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Keep Being an amputee or not is important for a character. Interesting for anyone looking into the role of being an amputee. D e lta Tango | Talk 02:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I would have supported deletion with this made into a category, but having centralized information on what appendages are lost and how they were removed is useful. Someone researching disabilities in fiction might otherwise have to go to each wikipedia page in the category, and that's assuming such information is on each wikipedia page. Half of these entries don't even have wikipedia pages. This is more than just entries on a list.--Trypsin 10:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --86.140.144.83 11:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful per Delta Tango. Carlossuarez46 17:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of fictional amputees, a category of this would be impractically large and spammish in their articles, but as a list it is useful. --tjstrf 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That name would be inaccurate. Not everybody on this list is an amputee. GassyGuy 00:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Well, renaming optional then. Still keep, as this is a case where imo a list is better than a category. --tjstrf 00:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Who on this list is not an amputee? Amputation doesn't require a surgical procedure; according to that article, "Amputation is the removal of a body extremity by trauma or surgery." Everyone listed here would seem to qualify.-- LeflymanTalk 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware of what amputation is. I also think Wicked is an awesome musical and can't recall any element of the plot that establishes Nessarose Thropp is an amputee. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe her lack of arms was not through amputation, but rather was because she was born without them. GassyGuy 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. I meant the novel in this case (though the musical was great too) and mistyped. Apologies for any potential confusion. GassyGuy 01:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um, that single entry has been removed as a congenital birth defect -- although that's correct for the current title, but not the list of fictional amputees. Next?-- LeflymanTalk 03:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why would you remove that entry? What significance do you attribute to amputees somehow? It still doesn't serve a similar purpose within the story. While I repeatedly agree that the authors have a purpose, I maintain that there's no reason to group them when all of the purposes are dissimilar. I feel as if we're going over the same ground repeatedly and see no reason to do so, so I shan't be adding to this AfD anymore (I pretty much said everything I had to say days ago and have just been rephrasing myself since.) Anyway, at a glance I don't notice anyone else who wouldn't fit the amputee list, but I can't be bothered to study a list I think ought not exist in the first place. GassyGuy 04:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sometimes this is important, sometimes it's not. Sometimes the character is a cripple, sometimes it's just a distinguishing feature. Sometimes the character had the limb amputated in the story, sometimes it's backstory. Sometimes the character is legitimately limbless, sometimes the character has an equally-efficient replacement, sometimes the character has a superior replacement. In short, this hopelessly broad list covers so many dissimilar cases that it isn't illustrating a topic, but merely indiscriminately including anything with a single feature, like a (hypothetical) List of blue things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete utter listcruft &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:28, 18 October 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.