Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (1)


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. On raw numbers, this would just barely reach two-thirds. But later comments by T. Anthony show that he isn't sure it should be deleted himself, and being below that threshold and seeing nothing in the debate to justify lowering it (apart from the usual "keep, cleanup (but not me!) stuff) this is not a consensus. I don't know what Ichiro is thinking with his relisting. We don't hold AfDs open indefinitely until they reach a delete consensus. -Splash talk 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional left-handed characters
It's unusual for me to do this, but the verify tag has been up for a month and as far as I can tell it's still totally unverified. I'm also uncertain it can be verified as in most shows or stories handedness is not important or, in the case of cartoons, may change on a whim.--T. Anthony 10:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as apparent original research, also as an indiscriminate collection of information. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as useless listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. (p.s. the edit link at the side of this nom seems to be broken, perhaps an admin can fix it?) Zunaid 11:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. PJM 12:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, apart from being original research and very hard if not impossible to verify for most entries, I'll go on a limb and say this is unmaintainable. If the fictional world is anything like the real world half of all fictional characters are left-handed. Also, some may have been thought how to use their right hand for writing (because it used to be considered bad to be a lefty). - Mgm|(talk)
 * Delete as listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  MGM: I agree with your comments on the article being hard to verify and unmaintainable; but to nitpick your bolded comment: according to Left-handed, if the fictional world were like the real world, that would be 10% of all fictional characters; but since handedness is usually not noted, much less than 10% of fictional characters would be on such a list.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-04 13:52Z 
 * Delete listcruft. 23skidoo 15:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How would this information be verified - only when explicitly stated? -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|25px|UK]] 15:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If it were limited to the small number of cases, say murder-mysteries and say Ned Flanders(who ran a "Leftorium"), where characters left-handedness matters to the story it'd be different. Well also some baseball movies would fit that I think. It would be a much smaller list that way, but that's okay. I'm just not sure anyone would have the time or inclination to do that.--T. Anthony 22:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There would be a few (very few) characters where left- or right-handedness is significant (I'm thinking a couple of murder mysteries and the like), and a few cases where it's an enforced quality from the actor which portrays the character, but for the rest it's unimportant and in the case of animations likely to be due just as much to ease of drawing or a mirror image of an originally opposite-handed picture, and thus subject to change. Confusing Manifestation 15:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important list, particularly as role models for the right-hand challenged. -- JJay 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for deletion of List of famous left-handed people. In fact I'm not even strongly arguing to delete this. I just don't see how it'll work as this is usually not important in fiction or entertainment. Or it's inconsistent with characters being left or right handed depending on whose drawing them, or in the case of live action what actor's playing them. The two Darrens on Bewitched were probably the same-handed, but there's likely been soaps where the character switched around on being played by a new actor.--T. Anthony 07:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete listcruft - "Wikipedia is not a provider of role models" ain't on WP:NOT, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - interesting and useful reference + WP:WINP. Blackcats 12:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - This list of fictional characters seems pretty pointless. I could see it being merged into the list of famous left handed people under a fictional character heading in cases where the left handedness of the character was actually important or a drawn upon point in the story. (ie. Ned Flander's Leftorium) Also as the original post says, the handedness of these characters probably changed frequently during animation/filming. Tom Foolery 01:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I should have proposed merger, that's maybe a better idea.--T. Anthony 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - does no harm, no rationale for deletion. Not sure why this would qualify as "original research" any more than, say, List of vegetarians . Turnstep 03:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's silly, but I'm uncertain if it should be deleted. I put it up because I have a feeling it should be, but I'm not convinced it must be if that makes sense. However if it is kept it seems like it would need massive improvement and I'm skeptical that anyone voting keep is really willing to do that.--T. Anthony 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But us AfD voters are not only a very small subset of Wikipedia, and we are almost always a small subset of the number of editors working on any particular article. Thus, if an article needs cleanup, we can slap a cleanup or expand tag on it, but perceived future non-cleaniliness should not be a reason to delete something. Articles can always be improved, but they only get deleted once. Turnstep 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I did slap on a "verify" tag a month ago. I also went to the talk page and told a defender of the list about this delete page so they could defend it. I'd made complaints on the article's talk page before coming here. I like lists, most of the time, and had some I worked on Afd'd without warning so I made sure to give warning. I can give more if need be.--T. Anthony 20:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And as for "not enough progress" I don't think there was any. I was thinking a single link or reference would be added after I put that tag up, but nothing was after a month.--T. Anthony 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well kudos to you for all of the attempts: it's far more than most people do. I'll stand by my keep however, for who knows when someone will come along and do the necessary work? Until then, the article is doing no harm. Turnstep 01:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete --Ajdz 05:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list. No need to delete encyclopedic information from Wikipedia.  Grue   09:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So an article on fictional left-handed characters would be in an encyclopedia?--T. Anthony 10:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In a non-paper one, sure. A paper one would probably be limited due to size restrictions and researcher time to mentioning a few characters in the "left-handed" article. We can do much better. :) Turnstep 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia being non-paper means we can do all kinds of things and I like lists. I'm just not sure every odd aspect of fictional characters is the best use of the ability to expand. Added to that I'm admittedly being a tad petty here. Grue voted to delete List of Catholic authors, although as unmaintainable not unencyclopedic, and did so on other lists I've enjoyed working at. I was a bit surprised s/he went keep here. Lastly if this goes keep I'm good with that, but if it does there needs to be ideas for improvement.--T. Anthony 20:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!'  --Ichiro 23:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is mostly reposted from a comment I made on the discussion page for the article last month: I think it's useful because there is a certain stigma that comes with being left-handed. Although usually not verified by actual facts, left-handers are thought to be one or more of the following: more intelligent, off-the-wall or wacky, strange, more successful than right-handers, more creative, or more likely to be serial killers. Showing this list of characters shows how much these ideas can affect even popular media. Looking at the characters on this list, you can see that many of them fit into one or multiple of the categories mentioned. Others might not fit into those groups, but show that left-handed characters are not portrayed as being these things 100% of the time. Also, unlike what someone said above, half of the world is not left-handed, it's really about 10% (as a quick glance at left-handed would have explained). It's also good to point out that most of these characters are listed here because of it being mentioned in the book/movie/game they're in that they are left-handed. Perhaps the page could use some explanation such as this at the top of it to describe the importance of the list. -GamblinMonkey 19:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. this list is fascinating. there are reasons why an author chooses to make the reader know a character is left-handed. very fascinating indeed. Kingturtle 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete-I had kind of voted merge, but that'll just aid the effort toward no concensus. I prefer merge, but I guess I'll just come down firmly on the side of preferring delete to keep. It's all essentially trivia as it stands. If someone wants to do an article on Left-handed characters in fiction they can certainly do so, but until then it's just an accumulation of names without any evidence to support them.--T. Anthony 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zunaid etc. "Fascinating", does not, I think, make it worthy. Crunch 23:44, 10 January 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.