Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional people known by one name


 * 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 DELETE. There is a debate, which I have read, but it's pretty clear that noone has been persuaded at all from their original position on the article. -Splash talk 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional people known by one name
list of not closely associated fictional characters, with list poorly defined. Lotusduck 03:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article previously survived AfD Votes for deletion/List of fictional people known by one name. -- JJay 14:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - That was more than a year ago. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  15:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, why not add the exact date. -- JJay 15:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Some of these entries (like Buffy) are only on the list because it is the nature of fiction that using a character's first or last name alone is a way to keep readers or viewers from getting confused.   Endomion 04:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This is true. I am known by my first name, say 90% of the time, and I'm sure someone you know is known by their first name most of the time too. Wednesday is almost never called Wednesday Adams, so the list should have her and almost every other character ever concieved of. By other rules, maybe this could be a list of characters that viewers never learn more than one name of. But again, that could be accomplished by adding a category tag to the end of each characters article, much as the "Fictional archaeologists" category works. -And hey, come to think of it, I have a question. Can any list be justified without supporting text, when cateogries will be far more updated and function exactly as well?


 * Keep. Excellent list that can only get better (you should indicate it has previously been on AfD). Only Scrooge could nominate this. -- JJay 04:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm confused- used for what? Useful how? If it gave any information about the characters, then it would serve some higher purpose than going onto each characters' page and adding a "Category: Fictional people known by one name" to the end. everyone on it's talk page has suggested deleting this page, and although I've read through the previous article for deletion post and I still don't get how this is encyclopedic or useful. This article is not a study in naming, it's a list of unrelated characters that authors didn't bother to write last/first names for. But accusations on the article aside, what good thing is this article supposed to be?
 * The list gives a short description and steers people to the corresponding pages. It enables anoms to add info, which they can not do with a category. There is no recent discussion on talk page about deleting this. -- JJay 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that there are three total entries in the talk page that don't mention that this page is useless, and one of those is me. That out of about eight comments on the talk page total. Please explain how this is a valid topic, because I have no idea what you are talking about.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My comments are above. Please add the link to the previous AfD discussion for this page as per procedure. -- JJay 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's the previous discussion for deletion: *Previous deletion debate but seriously. How is this an excellent list? Once it has every one-worded god and all of the fictional books and television shows that use that name for a character, how is that better? Your comments are above, but I don't understand them at all. What is going to make this list get better with time? Complements are fine, I just would prefer to hear some justification for a list of fictional people known by one name.Lotusduck 07:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. This is a valid topic. -- MisterHand 06:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this is a valid topic, as I have no idea what you mean.Lotusduck 06:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as unecyclopedic and uncompleteable; another list for the sake of a list. Flyboy Will 06:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I liked this topic, and put a lot of work into it, and into trying to define it. I suggest supporters of this topic try and edit it, just a little. You may realize how many hairs can be split that can be used to include any character at all in this list, or how no information or enjoyment can be derived from this list. I see both of those as distinct and likely possibilities. Information can be added to lists, but it isn't. The only information added to a one-word name is the other names they are known by, aka why they shouldn't be on the list. Then we can sit down and add every villain on Stargate SG-1, every god from the show Hercules, every third character in any Shakespear play, all the miscellaneous dwarves from the beginning of The Hobbit and contemplate why anyone would want to see their names mixed together in alphabetical order. That's an impossible list even using the most stringent definitions and exclusions ever discussed in the talk page for this article. I helped nurse this baby to health, and I haven't yet heard a good reason not to kill it. I'm not making fun of supporters, I genuinely want somebody to explain it to me how this is useful, encyclopedic or even neat.Lotusduck 07:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Listcruft. --Apostrophe 08:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft with no encyclopediacl value. Pavel Vozenilek 08:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Listcruft, OR --  Dalbury ( Talk )  11:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft and hoplessly objective. RasputinAXP  talk contribs 12:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Flyboy Will. Movementarian 14:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. What am I missing? According to Wikipedia policy detailing what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT): " Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. “…Wikipedia articles are not: … 2 List or repository of loosely associated topics  such as quotations, aphorisms or persons …. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." (I've only quoted the specific words related to this list. Underline and red are my emphasis.)  Though I've found it interesting to see names that have been contributed, it seems that this list is precisely described in WP:NOT.  &mdash; ERcheck @ 16:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't think Mr. Bean or Spock are known by one name? -- JJay 16:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. But how closely associated are they? Any work of fiction whatsoever will have a character whose name is suucint and easy to remember. You could write an article about the significance of such eponymous characters as you think are obviously important, but the issue of contention is that Mr.Spock and Anubis and Gimli contributed in some significant way together to naming conventions, and even that would be better served by an article. I understand that there are characters known by one name, I don't understand how this isn't exactly what Wikipedia is not.Lotusduck 17:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Spock and Bean are fictional characters known by one name. They are therefore on this list. Beyond that, there is nothing to debate. Your views are clear since you nominated the list for deletion. It will be deleted. -- JJay 17:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, ideally the majority vote would be a kind of consensus. We have, as I understand it, four days before votes are counted and opinions considered. If you are done debating, I do hope any other people that don't want this article deleted try to discuss reasons for doing so here.Lotusduck 17:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Incedentally, Mr. Bean is not on the list. He was removed by persons not me, under the assumption that he was not known without the "Mr."- A minor character in Enders game named Bean is, setting some precident that all minor characters from fiction with unrecallable full names belong on this list. If you want to reverse that precident and fix the article to be somewhat more completable, then perhaps if it survives AfD you should. Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as valid as any other list on Wiki. Comment Seems odd to me that in the main its the folk that vote Keep that get challenged to explain their vote. Jcuk 23:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, the "Special Olympics" defense. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What the blazes does that mean?? Jcuk 21:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask that myself. But maybe he means that he thinks you're only supporting this list because you've seen lists that were more useless. I'm curious, what is this list valid for?Lotusduck 04:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For finding characters that are known by only one name! Does exactly what it says on the tin. As a wheelchair user who watches the paralympics avidly, I strongly resent the insinuation that they are "more useless" than the other games. Jcuk 10:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You've looked at the list. Isn't it also "useful" for finding characters known by their full names, like "James T. Kirk" and others? Not only that, but it can't be edited or fixed because there are no sources with any information on what qualifies as a significant one named character. As such, the article is Original Research, not taken from valid sources but made up to gratify people who edit it like you and me. No original research Lotusduck 23:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think that's mainly when the Keep recommentdation seems incompatible with policy and/or guidelines. --  Dalbury ( Talk )  23:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm asking people to support their keep reccomendation just because I want to have a dialogue about it. The people who say delete have quoted policy and guidelines, so of course people who say keep have some other interpretation of those guidelines. Also, I think I've laid out pretty well how this list really is incompletable, since every theater production and space opera ever made has several eponymous one-word named character. Given that I think I've justified my vote, I feel I can ask people if they can justify theirs.Lotusduck 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. Lists are great and all but when we start creating them based on fairly arbitrary criteria, we are getting silly.  It's about as useful as creating a list of fictional people who hate the colour blue or a list of world leaders who like tea. Arkyan 00:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * At least people who hate the color blue is specific. This is similar to a "list of fictional people known by their full name" which is probably a little more doable.Lotusduck 01:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete useless lists of vaguely related items. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep useful list, already survived Vfd.  Grue   17:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to challange the validity of anyone's opinion, but since this is meant to be a debate, what's your take on the guideline "Wikipedia is not a list repository of loosely related topics"? If this article could be a list of actually closely related topics, then the best way for you to defend it is to edit the article so that it somehow is not a collection of barely related persons.Lotusduck 19:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per Arkyan. Observation: so far no-one seems to have responded to Lotusduck's request for a reasonable explanation as to why they are voting "keep", in terms of the policies and guidelines. Is this perhaps because there isn't one? Zunaid 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment 'useful list, already survived Vfd.' Seems like a reasonable explanation of a vote.....why should Keep voters have to justify themselves any more than delete voters? As for policies and guidelines, I personally have found if I try to justify my vote according to them, someone else comes along and says "Ah but what about this totally contradictory policy" so I dont bother. Jcuk 18:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't have to do anything. I just want a discussion, because I don't understand what you mean by useful. I've read the previous VfD, and all anyone ever said was that it wasn't the least useful list or that it was useful. Now, delete voters have agreed other deleters that have quoted policy and generally explained, or maybe in my case ranted away exactly what we mean by useless and incompletable. I'm glad that people can be bold, but I'm not ridiculing people by asking them to have some sort of discussion here. What is this list useful for? If you think that the "what this list isn't" section narrows the category enough to make it completable, I have to say that I wrote that section in it's entirety, and I don't think it makes the list completable at all.Lotusduck 18:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing is ever complete. -- JJay 19:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but most good articles on wikipedia have at least a possibility of becoming nearly comprehensive in their topic. When I see that most fictional swearwords start with an F, I have some reasonable expectation that this is based on a popular sample of fictional swear-words taken from reputable sources. When I get a sample from "List of fictional people known by one name" I can be sure that it is based on original research that is not verifiable or referencable by outside sources. You and I may agree that Scrooge, Mr. Bean and Spock are fictional characters known by one name, but when someone removed Mr. Bean, there was no criteria, no outside source to verify that he did belong on the list. The only applicable rules are the fairly arbitrary ones I created that allow for honorifics like Mr. That is why Wikipedia is not for original research. Can you cite a source that verifies whether Sideshow Bob is a one named character or a two named one? You could prove it by the ruberic at the beginning of the page that defines one name as literally one word- but that's not a trustworthy source- that's a un-reveiwed unedited tirade by me. So if anyone can site a newspaper or other real source to prove whether acronyms like ALF are really one word names or if The Cat is a one word name or two, then that will certainly make me re-think a few things. If this list could be something other than original research then someone should change it to that to save it, because right now it's original research, which will probably lead to it's deletion, I think.Lotusduck 21:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? Everyone knows that ALF stands for alien life form, but in print is just called ALF. -- JJay 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

On the talk page, people have suggested that ALF does not belong on "List of fictional people known by one name" on the basis that ALF is an acronym, and that this means that it is more than one name in and of itself. What can we reference to determine the validity of Alf or names with "the" in them? Currently, even Sideshow Bob is on the list, (I think that's two names as much as Peter Parker is two names.) what source can we cite to settle whether or not he should be? We could come to a consensus, but that still amounts to original research, which is what wikipedia is not. To be legitimate we must be able to cite a source that comments on the one-named-ness of given characters. No original research Lotusduck 03:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What you need to do is define the criteria, like you have done, and then use footnotes for those troublesome cases like Sideshow Bob, drawing on the abundance of good sources like newspapers. We need careful documentation of fictional characters' first names. This is the type of question that always comes up, and given the level of misinformation out there, we need to set people straight. Personally, I think the list should have two parts: 1) fictional characters that have no documented second name, such as Spock; 2) fictional characters that have two names but are most commonly known by just one, such as Scrooge. -- JJay 04:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But the topic of the article "fictional people known by one name" itself does not have a source to be cited. There are sources that can tell us that there is a Simpsons' character named sideshow bob, but the actual topic of the article is purely original research. List of fictional Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender people can have an actual source citing the importance of certain characters being on the list, even going into the obscure. For fictional people known by one name, we might be able to find someone, somewhere writing an article on Spock's ubiquity as it relates to the show not using his last name. We're just as likely not to find such an article, even given the widespread discussion of his popularity. So while characters first names and last names can be carefully sourced to ensure accuracy, can the significance of a characters' only having one name be sourced? Can the significance of all of these characters only having one name be sourced?Lotusduck 04:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Questions/Comments: Even within the article there are conflicting/ambiguous descriptions of what qualifies for the list.  In the lead to the article, it says the fictional character is to be "known unambigously by one of  the following ... first or last name, one word nickname, only known name."   Then under the description of what the list is not:  "Characters that are usually called by one name but their full name is easily recalled, like Wednesday Adams, are not included in this list...One example of this would be Radar from M*A*S*H, who has a real full name comprised of several words, but that name is very obscure information within the show... This is not a list of people with a one-word nickname, or a one word name that they are often called. Only characters with a one word nickname and an unknown or very obscure full name or other names. So Superman is not on the list because all of his names total three: Superman, Clark and Kent."
 * &mdash; These descriptions are ambiguous. If a character has a title, e.g. "Mr." or "Captain", do they still qualify? Spock or Mr. Spock?  Captain Kirk or Kirk? In the case of Radar from M*A*S*H, he is well-known as Radar O'Reilly.  Frank Burns most commonly called him "Corporal O'Reilly", so how does he qualify?  How does "Holmes", aka Sherlock Holmes, qualify? The "Fonz" &mdash; Mr. & Mrs. Cunningham always called him Arthur (his given name). "Neo" from the Matrix &mdash; Mr. Smith was always calling him "Mr. Anderson".  I'm not an avid fan of any of the shows, but I knew these off the top of my head. &mdash; ERcheck @ 05:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Kirk= James Kirk. -- JJay 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - this is my point. What really qualifies?  If Radar qualifies, then Capt Kirk does because he is known unambigously as Capt. Kirk (like "Mr. Spock", the title doesn't seem to count). In the case of the others, there are multiple names that they are well-known by, not all being one word.:
 * - Kirk = Captain Kirk = James T. Kirk = Jim
 * - Radar = Radar O'Reilly = Corporal O'Reilly = Walter O'Reilly
 * - The Fonz = Fonzie = Arthur = Arthur Fonzarelli
 * - Holmes = Sherlock Holmes (name best known by)
 * - Neo = Mr. Anderson = Thomas Anderson
 * &mdash; ERcheck @ 05:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ERcheck, I am tending away from arguing that this is a sprawling, unrelated article, and trying to explain that this article is original thought, not a documentation of a real reported phenomenon. But you are right: The names currently on the list set a precedent that all names of all characters ever concieved of should be on this list-

However, if there were some pressing need for a list of fictional people known by one name, it still would need to be a documented concern in newspapers, books or scholarly journals. For instance- there is, I think, a pressing need for a documentation of movies with a dream-self discovery theme, like The Wizard of Oz and The Labrynth- but if I can't find a source that ties these films together as important besides the movies themselves, I should not make such an article, even if I think the connection is clear, sure and important. Because wikipedia is not a lazy persons' publisher. If we say that names with honorifics can be included on this list based on my opinion that is baseless gratification of me, that is me pushing my ideas onto wikipedia with no base in verifiable sources, and that is wrong.Lotusduck 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This still amounts to original research, so while my rubric dictates some of what qualifies, my rubric is not a real source. If I were some really strange kind of reporter, and the beginning description about what should and shouldn't apply to a list of fictional people was an article in a real newspaper, and then said article became really popular for no reason and someone thought to make a wiki article on it, then this would all be legitimate. But wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought.Lotusduck 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Seriously bad listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of random information. Stifle 02:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm going off on too many tangents of the discussion on this page, but what does listcruft stand for? I searched wikipedia for "listcruft" and while I undertand very generally what you mean, I'm still curious. Maybe a definition of listcruft would help people know why they should vote delete, maybe I'm cluttering this article with chatter. Well, time will tell.Lotusduck 05:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Short answer: "listcruft" = "an indiscriminate collection of information", which in this case happens to be a list. The same goes for gamecruft, forumcruft, or any other cruft. Zunaid 06:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, trivial. -Sean Curtin 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, listcruft --Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thought this was closed. Delete per nom. - SoM 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I have learnt my lesson, not to close AFDs in most cases but let the admins do it. --Terence Ong Talk 11:36, 3 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.