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


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional left-handed characters

 * Previous AfD

I'm doing this again after trying it last year. I'd sort of given up last year as I thought it might be significant to some characters and was going to improve. The first is still possible, but I'm skeptical it's improved enough in the last years. BTW: I'm left-handed myself with some ambidextrous tendencies.--T. Anthony 20:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason the AfD at the page is not linking to here, but is instead pointing to the previous AfD. I hope someone can fix that.--T. Anthony 23:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the formatting issues. Sam Blacketer 00:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. How about deleting every character without an explanation of the significance of their left-handedness, and hence not notable even to the work of fiction itself? As pointed out on the Talk page, it may just happen that the actors themselves are left-handed. I'm not sure how to go about verifying each one though. Pomte 01:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's difficult to see the point of this, and the notion is vague (far vaguer than the handedness of real people, which is itelf imprecise). --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for several reasons. First, based upon AFD precedent for similarly formatted articles such as the former list of "alleged continuity issues" with Star Trek: Enterprise, this list is considered original research and unsourced as it currently stands (yes, I know the films/TV shows are primary sources, but that doesn't seem to meet criteria for such lists). Second, and more important for me, a quick glance reveals that the vast majority of the items listed here are simply anecdotal based upon the fact a left-handed actor happened to be playing the role, not that there is actual point raised that the character is left handed. (A good example being Dr. Doolittle; was the character specifically written as a left-handed character? Is there actual reference in dialogue to his left-handedness being an issue?) 23skidoo 12:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - I did not see any real reason for deletion stated in the nomination. According to WP:LIST, a list is good if it is organized and provides helpful annotation; this list is easily verifiable. Tarinth 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:LIST and the like. No reason for nomination given - I can't seem to conjure any up either. WilyD 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From Lists (stand-alone lists), as this is a stand-alone. "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." Left-handedness is a fairly common trait. In addition on including names in lists it says "If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" What characters here would be less famous or significant if they were right-handed? Maybe there are a few, but is it enough to justify the list?--T. Anthony 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, from WP:LIST ''Information
 * The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists.
 * Navigation
 * Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind, they would likely use the See also lists. If the user has a specific research goal in mind, and there is only one or two words that are used to describe the research topic, and they know exactly how to spell the word, they would probably use the search engine box. If the user has some general idea of what they are looking for but does not know the specific terminology, they would tend to use the lists of related topics (also called list of links to related articles).''
 * Delete because it's a list is not a valid criterion. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. WilyD 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research, and 23skidoo's argument about actor/character confusion is also persuasive. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. It's non-encyclopedic trivia. WP:LIST is a style guide, not a content policy. Agent 86 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, WP:LIST is not a style guide, but that aside, non-encyclopaedic trivia is a pretty bizzare statement. Care to explain how you arrived at such an unfathomable conclusion? WilyD 21:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect that he meant that it's trivia and thus not encyclop&aelig;dic. That's only a guess based on the words that he used, of course. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but comment As it stands, the article appears to be completely unreferenced, which on its own is reason for deletion if that isn't corrected. Assuming references can be found, the list should be limited to characters whose articles make notable mention of the fact they are left handed. In fact, such fictional characters probably do exist; there are cases, I think, where authors intentionally make a character left-handed to make some sort of statement or to provide a physical juxtaposition against right-handed characters. Left-handedness also has a historical stigma that might be referenced by some authors.
 * So basically if the article can be referenced and eliminates characters who aren't mentioned as being notably left-handed in their article, then I'd be more inclined to keep at that point. Dugwiki 23:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is possible and doable I might consider withdrawing. I would've just placed "verify", or something, if I felt that was likely. Still anything is possible I guess.--T. Anthony 00:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On consideration I think an article on left-handedness in fiction would be a better way to go than even a different kind of list on the topic. I don't think this is an area where there is a systemic bias needing the kind of help a list can provide. It's also not a situation where there already is an article Left-handedness in fiction and this list is a supplement to it.--T. Anthony 18:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced article with an arbitrary scope.-- danntm T C 05:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Delete as original research. Edison 07:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would develop Dugwiki's point: only a few characters are left-handed for some reason related to the plot of the story they appear in; most are left-handed because the actor playing them is left-handed. This makes it a mere list of coincidences and not truly encyclop&aelig;dic. If a character's left-handedness is intrinsic to a plot, then that can be noted elsewhere, but not in a list such as this. Sam Blacketer 13:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're pretty much in agreement, Sam. I think in theory you could maybe construct an interesting article about characters who their author made left-handed for artistic or philosophical reasons.  The topic might make a good sub-topic of Left-handed.  But as written the current list article pretty much needs a complete redo to cull characters who are coincidentally lefthanded and to provide references for any notable ones worth keeping and for analysis. Dugwiki 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It may need an overhaul, but this is one of the more interesting articles and part of what I like about Wikipedia. I recognize that that might not stand as a valid argument in some people's eyes, but I don't see a compelling reason to delete it.--GlitchBob dbug 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with GlitchBob.  It could use an overhaul and some sources, but it shouldn't be outright deleted.  I don't see how the page being "trivial" is a good reason to delete it.  There are plenty of trivial articles on Wikipedia, and that's what makes the site cool. Strummer42 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [Note User's fourth edit.]
 * Keep. I agree with the two above sentiments. --209.193.46.114 00:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the entries are sourced, and there are far too many entries saying "(insert character) was seen using their left hand once" or "uses their left hand in some scenes, and their right hand in others", which don't really make the character left-handed. Lots of original research abounds as well. WarpstarRider 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Strummer and GlitchBob. The list hurts no one, and as a left handed person it is interesting to read about left handed characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BtVSFan (talk • contribs). [Note User's first and only edit.]
 * The main issue isn't whether or not the topic is interesting. It's that the article needs to be sourced, and unverifiable information needs to be deleted. Lacking sources, the article should be deleted and later recreated if and when those problems can be addressed. Dugwiki 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unsourced and arbitary list. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per BtVSFan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedius Zanarukando (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep - I am willing to work with others on overhauling and cleaning up the article, which I've spent much time helping to create already, but I feel that much of the content is still valuable and doesn't need to be deleted outright. ShadowHare 18:03, 30 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.