Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional narcissists


 * 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional narcissists

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - for all the same reasons that Category:Fictional narcissists was deleted. The list is hopelessly subjective and requires editors to impose their POV in deciding who to list and who not to. The introduction to the article is a great indicator of why it should be deleted: "This article comprises a list of fictional characters who may be consider[ed] to be narcissists." Considered by whom, under what criteria? The list is indiscriminate and constitutes an improper loose association based on a character trait that the members may or may not share in common according to the interpretation of any particular editor. And for good measure, no sources, reliable or otherwise. Otto4711 22:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- SkierRMH 21:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that this version of the list is subjective, unverified, and so on.  However, the concept of the list itself is not.  It requires no POV or OR from editors if the requirement where that it list only characters who are described as narcissists by themselves, other fictional characters, their creators, reviewers, or in some other published, reliable source.  I will withhold suggesting keeping or deletion until I can further consider the feasibility of creating such a list.  I strongly disagree that psychological conditions among fictional characters (or among individuals) constitutes a loose association (any more than nationality, for instance).  If the article is deleted, I strongly urge deletion to be without prejudice to future recreation.  -- Black Falcon 23:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your sentiment here, but the problem I see with it is that we're not dealing with articles as they might be, or could be, or should be, but articles as they are. See for example the AFDs for Lothlórien Co-op. It was kept the first time largely on the strength of what the keepers said the article could become. Two months later, no one who argued to keep it had touched the article and the article was deleted and the people who wanted it kept the first time didn't even show up to defend it. More recently see the closing statement for Articles for deletion/Swastikas in popular culture which pretty clearly rejects the "can be cleaned up" argument as a reason for keeping. Otto4711 00:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Swastikas article is now at Deletion Review. WP:Deletion_Review DGG 03:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I must again strongly disagree. if we require immediate perfection of all articles, Wikipedia would quickly become a passing fad, as every new article (and almost all old ones) would be throttled like infants in a crib. -- Black Falcon 04:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the words "immediate perfection" anywhere in any statement that I've ever made regarding any article on Wikipedia ever. I would never demand immediate perfection from an article and your claiming that I did or would is a misrepresentation of my statements. What I am saying is that if an article is hopelessly flawed as is it should not be kept on the basis of "it can be worked on." (and please don't respond by saying that you don't agree this article is hopelessly flawed because I am speaking in general terms) Otto4711 14:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The let us speak in general terms. If we are dealing only with articles "as they are", that is the equivalent of requiring immediate quality (alright, perfection was an overstatement).  We should not only consider how an article looks now, but what potential it has for improvement.  -- Black Falcon 23:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because I don't see why the reason given for deletion applies to this situation. Furthermore, if the article is flawed, that's what cleanup tags are for! Deletion is indeed for when the CONCEPT of the article is flawed, not for when the article itself has some bad entries. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete As with nom, I just see the application of the concept "narcissist" to be dependent on one's own POV rendering it largely unverifiable. I don't really consider this to be encyclopaedic. I don't feel this article corresponds closely to the article on Narcissits. In fact, using the dictionary definition of "narcissism" I would be inclined to remove several "fictional narcissists" from this list. Suriel1981 10:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also How many names on that list is it possible to prove with (referencing) are narcissists? Suriel1981 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, the very concept of the list is subjective. Krimpet 17:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete narcissist is in the eye of the beholder, unless the list consists solely of a) Narcissus and b) people who have called themselves "narcissist" in print or interviews. Otherwise, the determination of this character trait exists solely in the mind of the editor who adds them to this list.  Intrinsically OR list and unmaintainable. -Markeer 21:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. & per Suriel1981 and Markeer. Inherently POV. Carlossuarez46 21:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not objectively defined.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:25, 1 March 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.