Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional doppelgängers


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

List of fictional doppelgängers

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Trivial and unsourced list. JBsupreme ( talk ) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any benefit to this list, trivial and unencyclopedic --Pretty Green (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only a few of the entries are sourced. The definition of doppelganger is also stretched fairly thin - I see clones (Thomas Lincoln, et al), people at different points in their lives (as with the Valyard and the Doctor), and true doppelgangers (Bizarro, etc). The list, in its present form, is indescriminate. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Terrible, just terrible. Seems to consist of nothing but synthesis and original research. Reyk  YO!  21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I had my bot create this list from Category:Fictional doppelgängers back in May 2007 as the result of a CFD consensus to listify the category and delete. Other than that, I have no interest in this category but I do question the article's value given its current state. RedWolf (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of clean-up on this article a year ago (which is presumably why I've been notified about it by a bot). The fact is that my cleanup though requiring considerable effort on my part made barely a dent in the article, which has gone on to acquire yet more unsourced cruft. It's time to delete it. --TS 10:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a major source of the plot in many but not all  of the works, and the works are notable; therefore the list is appropriate. If any of these are not prominent in the work, then of course those entries should be removed. A list of instances of a notable plot element in notable works is relevant content. The definition should probably restrict it to "A list of doppelgängers, look-alikes, and evil twins throughout literature, movies, and other forms of popular culture. " but not also "more loosely to characters intended to serve as foils to or antitheses of better known characters."  This would probably remove about half the list, such as Tash/Aslan.   DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure why this is notable as a list? Just because the list can be made, doesn't mean it should. Secondly, are doppelgangers a 'major source of the plot' in many of the works? A lot of these are obscure characters from individual episodes of long running series. There is a section on the doppelgänger article which discuses the use of doppelgangers in fiction, as a narrative tool. Why do we need a list? There is little, if any, purpose or sense in linking these various works of fiction. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being unsourced is not a criterion for deletion, and, as DGG points out, the topic is not trivial. &mdash; DroEsperanto (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Ultraexactzz. RFerreira (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete unless substantial imrovement takes place during this AfD or someone can offer a plan for such improvement. Before anyone points me to There is no deadline, which I agree with in principle, I want to point out that there is a significant difference between "there is no deadline" and "there is no deadline and the article can be improved". I removed a few entries as being examples of foils or antitheses, but I have difficulty imagining how one could adequately improve the list as a whole. Only if it can be improved (the main issue being that entries on the list must not be included on the basis of any original interpretation or synthesis of information) would I support keeping it per DGG. –Black Falcon (talk) 07:01, 8 February 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.