Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional narcissists (2nd 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   delete. I disregarded the stricken comments. Absent that, I see a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional narcissists
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced list. I don't see how this could ever be NPOV, as there is no scientific standard as to which person (and especially not which fictional character) is narcisisstic. Any addition to this list is therefore essentially subjective, even if based on the opinions of a third party author or source. Passportguy (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, but it will require sourcing that each of the characters listed has been so described in secondary sources. This should be possible, (I removed the repost speedy on the earlier list, which was much longer and not as appropriate) DGG (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I have stated earlier, I don't think there is no way to source this in a NPOV manner. Even if I find third party sources that state that XYZ is narcissistic, that is an opinion of that particular author and other authors will disagree. In absense of a scientific method to establish whether somebody (especially a fictional character) is narcissistic, all additions are always opinions, regardless of whether they are held by large numbers of people or not.
 * Btw : If you look at the previous AfD that was the main reason the other article got deleted as well. Passportguy (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TPH Passortguy, are you actually saying we can not use material about fictional people from third party reliable sources describing the sorts of characters they are? What sort of material do you think we could use, or can we not write about fictional people at all? DGG (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you meant to address Passportguy, not me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that we should not use opinions (not refering to facts here) to classify people/characters here. The problem with this is that if we permit third party opinions to be the basis for classification we'll soon have lists like "The best tennis players of all times", which then will include almost all professional tennis players, just because some source states that a reporteer called a particular tennis player a "great player". That is why there should be no lists that categorize whatever based on individual opinions alone. Passportguy (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a bad point but the scenarios are different. Note however that using those sources one could conceivably create a List of tennis players considered great. --Dominus Noster (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above, inherently not-NPOV. I swear, DGG would keep everything if he could. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Right, sorry 22:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Good for DGG I'd say. --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I certainly would not. I vote to delete here for several articles a day, and I've deleted 7500 articles by speedy alone. That puts me in the top 10% of admins for number of articles deleted. I suppose I should describe myself as a deletionist, for the half of WP submissions that should be deleted. DGG (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced, entirely original research, and agree that professional psychiatrists aren't in the business of diagnosing fictional characters as narcissists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)
 * Diagnoses of fictional characters. Actually, psychiatrists have looked at personality disorders, including narcissism, in fictional characters. Dyer SK: Narcissism in the novels of Herman Melville. Psychiatr Q. 1994 Spring;65(1):15-30; MA Shipe: "On Being Updike Forever": Narcissism as National Epic in John Updike's Short Fiction. 2007 - Washington University; Hyler SE, Gabbard GO, Schneider I: Homicidal maniacs and narcissistic parasites: stigmatization of mentally ill persons in the movies. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1991 Oct;42(10):1044-8; Hesse M, Schliewe S, Thomsen RR: Rating of personality disorder features in popular movie characters. BMC Psychiatry 2005, 5:45 "Suzanne Stone in the film "To Die For" is a young woman who wants to be on television at any cost. She marries a young man, but soon begins to have affairs with TV producers to accomplish her main goal: to become a news-reporter at a major TV station. When her husband tries to persuade her to settle down and have children, she decides to have him killed instead, taking advantage of three troubled youths, whom she has met while trying to make a TV production. SS was seen as a prototypical narcissistic person by the raters: on average, she satisfied 8 of 9 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, some histrionic personality disorder criteria, and relatively few others. In terms of the five-factor model, she is as open to experience as the others, as conscientious as the others (except for AW), as extraverted (except for SM), as disagreeable (except CS), and a low-scorer on neuroticism. Had she been evaluated for personality disorders, she would receive a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder." BC Douglas: Dickens' characters on the couch: an example of teaching psychiatry using literature. Medical Humanities 2008;34:64-69; more here. Fences and windows (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Scientific evidence or no, if third party sources have described these characters as narcissistic then they belong in there. I've done some quick research on a few of the characters. With regards the character Azkadellia, it would seem that the actress who played her described said character as narcissistic. I haven't actually seen the film the character appeared in so I wouldn't know for certain. The characters Hyacinth Bucket, Lex Luthor and Opal Koboi definitely belong in there though, as do a few others. --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no way to apply the same standard to all members of the list. In one case, the actor who voiced the role in a Disney animated film says the character is narcissistic.  In another case, a noted psychiatrist writes a paper describing various narcissistic fictional characters.  For a different character, the author of a short story makes the diagnosis on Oprah.  In a different case, Ebert declares it.  What a mess.  Besides, Narcissus isn't even on the list. Drawn Some (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't prove Narcissus wasn't a real person. We even have an article about him.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if true, how would it be relevant? DGG (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was making a funny. I guess if a joke has to be explained, it wasn't that funny (the nut of the joke was "maybe narcissus really existed, in which case he wouldn't belong here.")Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An excellant point Bali ultimate. Secondly, it seems to me like the cases you've provided will make excellant sources, Drawn Some. I'd be very grateful if you were to provide the links. --Dominus Noster (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were not intended to be actual cases, they were hypothetical. Sorry, I thought that was obvious because I didn't name the cases. Drawn Some (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. Such verifications would be ideal however. --Dominus Noster (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. There can be meaningful expansion of Narcissism, but I don't think this list is maintainable. Fences and windows (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I was prepared to like this, but it's nothing but an indiscriminate (i.e., no other identifying information) list and a few people saying, "There's a narcissist". The Joker-- for sure!  Lex Luthor-- definitely man!  Remember General Zod from Superman II? Dude, that guy loved himself! etc. etc.  --  This one goes out of its way to be indiscriminate.  I was reading it and ran across "Napoleon", and I'm like, "hey, he's not fictional-- there really was a Napoleon Bonaparte".  No, in this case, it's the pig from George Orwell's Animal Farm.  Notable absence from the list is Narcissus from Greek mythology.  This type of list might have been okay a few years ago, but slapping together a list of blue-links doesn't cut it anymore. Mandsford (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete OR and NPOV concerns (if we choose a uniform definition) aside, my main reason to see this article deleted is that, in the process of writing it, the bloody trope namer wasn't on the list. Seriously, guys? Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandsford. I could envision a sourced version of this list that would be worth keeping in Wikipedia. But no attempt has been made to source the article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: In that case then let us endeavour to source the article. It seems there are reliable primary sources on the internet, the ones provided further up the page look perfect. I think deletion would be unwise at this point and a waste of good (for want of a better word) information. If the article doesn't improve in time then let's consider deletion again, but for the time being, no. --Dominus Noster (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I recognize that this is your first contribution, and we all want to welcome you to Wikipedia. It takes some time to learn the do's and "don't"s here.  I'd endorse the idea of having you "userfy" this so that you can improve it as your schedule permits, and then re-release it.  To start this, you would create an article called "User:Dominus Noster/List of fictional narcissists".  If you have questions, leave a note for me on my talk page and I'll be happy to answer them.  Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mandsford, much appreciated. --Dominus Noster (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to problems with NPOV/definition of the subject matter. The subject has to be tight enough so that any possible sources shouldn't conflict each other.  Also the scope is too broad: are we trying to diagnose fictional subjects with Narcissistic personality disorder or just making comments about personality quirks?  The former is pracically unsourcable and the latter is overly indiscriminate.  Them  From  Space  14:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern Themfromspace but as said at the top of the article it's for overtly proud, vain and arrogant characters. If some characters have been diagnosed as narcissists in either fiction (like Livia Soprano) or reality (like Voldemort) then they should also be included. --Dominus Noster (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Mandsford. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Hopefully you don't need anyone telling you how to think, no third party media references for each character listed, but instead can use common sense here. If there is a single entry on that list, that you sincerely doubt should be there, discuss it on the talk page, and if no one has any reasonable objection, eliminate it.  Has anyone who read a certain comic book, or series of novels, or whatnot, doubted the character from there on the list is narcissist?   D r e a m Focus  04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't have put it better myself DF, that's exactly the way we should do things around here. --Dominus Noster (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is advocating original research in place of sourced statements. This goes directly against the spirit and mission of a verifiable encyclopedia. We can't just write what we feel to be true, we must source it.  Them  From  Space  11:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well realistically speaking original research may be all Wikipedia has to offer but that's a discussion for another time and place as people have quite strong opinions about that sort of thing and it can all get rather heated. --Dominus Noster (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep What a dreadful list, Per WP:lede we shoudl share a bit about how these characters are significant and used in fiction. Per WP:List it would be much more helpful to share at least a little detail about each of these cited to share something about them to build a bit of a narrative rather that a glorified clump of information. Still these are editing issues not deleteion ones. -- Banj e  b oi   18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Dreadful list? I'll thank you to keep opinions like those to yourself. --Dominus Noster (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We are here to offer our opinions. This is a dreadful list, I could have called it subpar, lacking, wanting, etc. but really it misses the mark even for many of the lists brought to AfD. I would love to have read it and actually been amused or learned something, neither happened. This list has potential and sources certainly exist to support that fictional characters are narcissistic. This list should be expanded to include at least passing information about each character's narcissism that would inform on the subject. -- Banj e  b oi   07:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Mandsford nails the problems here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I'm siding with the idea that we can source this now. Names should not be added just based on the fact that the editor thinks the character is a narcissist - if we have more than one reliable source that makes this assessment, or if the character is prominently referred to as a narcissist within the work, that should suffice. Fences and windows (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely un-referenced and per reason here and less so here from the deletions of Category:Fictional narcissists. Willing to re-consider if it can be shown how, why, and by whom each of these characters are considered 'narcissistic'. --maclean 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. So are you saying that you think that some of the characters on the list are not narcissistic? With regards to the list lacking references, attempts are being made currently to source the article. --Dominus Noster (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep User: Fences and windows' excellent research shows that the nomination is mistaken and that there is indeed scope to develop the article in a NPOV way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should Keep this list, but only include narcissists as sourced by third parties. While that seems a challenging task, it is not an insurmountable one....SouthernCritic111 (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as inherently POV, subjective fictional foo (and per Mandsford's reasoning). And if User:Dominus Noster isn't Jupiter Optimus Maximus (aka Illustrious One, aka YourLord), I'll eat my hat. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you want it rare, medium or well-done? --Dominus Noster (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seared, please. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Bon appetite. --Dominus Noster (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: As I suspected, User:Dominus Noster is a sockpuppet of indef blocked User:YourLord and has been indefinitely blocked. See Sockpuppet investigations/YourLord. As such I have striken his above comments. Turns out I won't be eating my hat after all, though he may be eating crow. Also I'd like to point out that this article ought to have been speedied as G4, since it was previously deleted 2 years ago. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2009 (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.