Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional misanthropes


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 10:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional misanthropes

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Highly subjective and POV list was apparently salvaged following the deletion of Category:Fictional misanthropes and Category:Fictional human misanthropes at the Categories for deletion discussion last December. All the same reasons for which the categories were deleted also apply here. Any list that includes Montgomery Burns, Bob Kelso (from Scrubs), and Godzilla is bordering on the ridiculous. Saikokira 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Inclusion of almost anyone in this list requires a point-of-view judgment.--Xnuala (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as pretty useless. What's worth saving can be incorporated into Misanthrope. I'm not sure what POV means in this context. Neutral Point of View policy is meant to prevent us taking sides in a controversy, not from using our judgment to make decisions about what should or should not go into the encyclopedia. To label some character misanthropic is something that can be proven or not, not a decision to be avoided. As editors, we're all permited to use our brains and our footnotes.Noroton 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --RaiderAspect 05:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bah, this list is almost completely worthless, indiscriminate and POV-choked.  The non-human list is largely and uncritically composed of generic fictional villains like "orc," "uruk-hai" and "Silurian."    RGTraynor  16:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - wayyyy too subjective and open for heated debate. Not encyclopedic. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as previously deleted material- recreating the deleted category as a list doesn't change any of the original reasons the category was deleted. -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. Actually relevant characters e.g. from de Sade novels are missing. Pavel Vozenilek 11:03, 13 April 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.