Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional crime bosses and gang leaders


 * 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 keep. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

List of fictional crime bosses and gang leaders

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Suffers from same issues as List of fictional gangs. Entirely WP:OR, and filled with cruft. Better served by Category:Fictional crime bosses. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete We already have Category:Fictional crime bosses, the list isn't necessary. SemiHypercube ✎ 15:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Unless you want to sleep with the fishes, please see WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Like Lugnuts says, WP:CLN says that we don't delete lists to favour categories. Andrew D. (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that there is a category is not why this article was nominated for deletion. I am not unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia and I know that categories can exist alongside lists. However, this WP:LISTCRUFT does not add anything of note. It is doubtful a convincing argument can be made for just why this list is required instead of simply having a category/categories.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one needs to show that anything is "required"; that's simply not a meaningful expectation. Content merely needs to be compliant. "...this...does not add anything of note." It's already annotated with the works in which these characters originate, and subdivided by medium. Neither can be done in the category. Your rationale does not appear to be based on a careful or thoughtful view of the content, nor for that matter, the relevant guidelines, because WP:NOTDUP does not require any special case to be made for why we would have a list as well as a category. The whole point of that guideline is that editors have different preferences and each format inherently has unique benefits. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep as complement to category per WP:CLN and as index of articles per WP:LISTPURP. Whether the individual characters need their own articles to merit inclusion here, or is it enough that the depicting work is notable, is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion to resolve. The OR complaint is without foundation (currently lacking secondary sources is not the same thing at all), leaving this an empty nomination. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Postdlf and Andrew D. The existence of a character within a story is basic information about that story which can be sourced to the story itself. My inclination would be that "the depicting work is notable" is a sufficient criterion to keep the list manageable. A reasonable inclusion criterion exists, and so keeping the list from becoming indiscriminate is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2018 (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.