Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional government agents


 * 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. Cbrown1023 15:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional government agents

 * — (View AfD)

Delete - indiscriminate list drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 14:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. - Aagtbdfoua 15:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unmaintainable list Alf photoman 17:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like a useful organization tool that only includes notable characters. It isn't indiscriminate because it deals with a specific subject.  The fact that it can't approach completeness is not an argument for deletion either, since no article on Wikipedia will ever hope to encompass all knowledge on the subject. Tarinth 18:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In this instance, categories are better organizational tools, such as Category:Fictional secret agents and spies and its sub-cats. Is it really a useful organization scheme to put for example Emily Sloane, who worked for the State Department at some point before the events of Alias, with Agent 13 (who doesn't even have an article, instead it's just a link to Get Smart) and Manuel Valenza? Otto4711 19:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above --71.126.240.180 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * oops thought I was signed in --BenWhitey 18:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete far to arbitrary, it would never be acceptable to the Minister of Silly Walks.-- danntm T C 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There must be a plethora of them. TSO1D 00:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Davidpdx 12:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Split This list would be more effecive as a separated list for different major agencies. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many of the agencies already have categories, which I still contend are superior to lists for this information. Many if not most of the listed characters don't even have individual articles. They just link back to the TV show or film the character is from. Rather than a separate list for the members of a particular show's agency, or lists of fictional agents not otherwise notable enough for individual articles, list the agents in the article for the show itself or, if the fictional agency is significant enough for its own article (c.f. Covenant (Alias) list the agents there. Otto4711 14:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A lack of individual articles indicates to me that a list could be far more useful than a category. (this is not to say a category is useless mind you, but categories and lists do not exist in opposition to each other). And while sometimes the source material may cover the material adequately, at other times it might be worth having a separate list.  For example, members of the FBI are in the X-files, Law and Order, and dozens of other works.  While there is a category for them, I know there's a lot that don't have an article about them (and probably shouldn't).  This indicates to me that a list would work better.   Putting them in the real article about the FBI won't work either.  I suppose FBI portrayal in the media can fulfill this role, so it's not a huge issue, though more articles on that sort of thing should be done.  (can't find the equivalent for the CIA for example).   But then we have to factor in size issues.  Covenant (Alias) may be able to list all of its members, but I can't say the same of S.H.I.E.L.D..  I think a similar issue could happen with regards to the CIA, KGB, MI-6, Mossad, even if they had an article like the FBI one.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep deleting a list merely because it isn't exhaustive, is like trying to delete all of Wikipedia, just because it isn't "complete" yet. -- User:Docu
 * Strong Keep. Good list. Nothing indiscriminate or unmaintainable about it. The argument that lists are only valuable if they are complete is bizarre. AndyJones 08:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The problem is not that it is now incomplete but that it will always be incomplete, so broad as to be indiscriminant, and too large to be an effective navigational tool. Eluchil404 10:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The argument that lists are only valuable if they will one day be complete is bizarre too. AndyJones 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711 and Eluchil404; information already categorised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Lists are never made redundant by categories. AndyJones 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This one is: it doesn't include any information. To be pedantic, db-empty could apply here. Adding "List ..." does not make an article immune from WP:CSD A3. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 14:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that only a pedant could think {db-empty} is relevant, so why are we arguing about it? As for the lack of information, in my view an organisational structure IS information (this is self-evident, I hope: correlating fact A with fact B adds something more than fact A and fact B both appearing separately in the encyclopedia somewhere), and this list provides an organisational structure that isn't available in the category. My vote still keep. AndyJones 12:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep The current information in the list is completely categorized, but it does not follow that all entries in the article will continue to be so. The impossibility at completeness is an inherent problem with all articles and lists. Zahir13 08:52, 6 January 2007 (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.