Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (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  faithless   (speak)  02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

This article was already deleted per this discussion, but recreated at some point. It might qualify for CSD G4, but just in case it does not, delete it because it consists entirely of original research. I would also ask you to think twice before suggesting we merge this list into the main article Spoiled brat. This unsourced garbage doesn't belong there either. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced list that creates a list of the very arguable set of spoiled brats. --Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If not Speedy Delete G4 as recreation of material deleted per the consensus established in Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (although as it had been more than a month since the article was recreated it might be better to make sure that consensus hasn't changed) but it doesn't seem like any of the issues brought up int he original AfD have been dealt with. The article is completely unreferenced, gives no criteria for inclusion and would always suffer from NPOV issues. Guest9999 (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Apparently, the creator of this article is now requesting deletion as well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Don't forget to remove the appropriate section in the Spoiled brat article when (and if) this gets deleted. Admiral Norton (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't you worry about that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You leave it alone, It is going to stay like it or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson (talk • contribs) 15:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This has got to be the textbook definition of "point of view". One person's hero is another person's villain, I guess.  Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Editors who can't agree on this are just trying to be difficult. I just added Violet Elizabeth Bott.  If this isn't kept, I'll thcream and thcream 'till I'm thick... :) Colonel Warden (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepA recognized character type in fiction, and the relevance to individual cases can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The "character type," as well as clearly notable examples, can be discussed in the spoiled brat article. No one's proposing that we delete that article.  This ugly list, however, doesn't belong in either place.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as irredeemable WP:OR and POV. Personally, I think there's a difference between a plain brat and a spoiled brat, but whoever's been contributing to this article clearly doesn't. Some of the entries would be extremely difficult to justify as brats at all, by any definition. Deor (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Guest, etc... Horrendous. Eusebeus (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original researc, POV, and silly waste of time. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - get real! —TreasuryTag talk contribs  18:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, my god, some people have quite the imagination. Way too difficult to maintain, calling a character a brat is original research. The Dominator (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unreferenced and no indication of notability.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Deor puts it best - obviously OR and POV. Edward321 (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Need? None at all. Original research? Absolutely, barring heavy sourcing. This isn't the type of list that is needed, or even useful. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow editors to find references. There are certainly references that identify these characters with this archetypal meme.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, it is anything but certain that there are references. The first name on the list, Tricia Cooke, yields 1 unrelated ghit.   The second name, Caitlin Cooke, yield 18 ghits, most of them from Wikipedia or mirrors.  .  The next, Greeter Gods and Goddesses has 17 ghits, mostly from Wikipedia or mirrors.  .  Ditto for Stanley. . I tried a couple other names at random.  All I find is unrelated sites or mirrors of this article.  Can anyone find any independant sources for any of the dozens of names on this list? Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I concede the above point sadly, unfortunately it will inviolve someone actually going to a decent-sized library such as one belonging to a university which will have a sizeable section on film and popular culture. The sad thing is the internet is not the be-all and end-all of published research. I am Basing my comment below on what I have seen in a voluminous library on pop culture and media in the past. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep fairly central character-type in plot-fiction. There will be some scholarly material somehwere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as wholly unreferenced original research. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 00:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also say Keep and allow editors to find references. There are certainly references that identify these characters with this archetypal, common meme. If not, I'm gonna tell my mommy! ;) Angie Y. (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists. Discriminate, organized list concerning a notable and recognizable topic that is encyclopedic to editors, easily verfiable, has editors willing to work on the article, and is not original research as it contains no original thesis.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Labeling a character a "spoiled brat" is definitely more POV than fact-based. It's blatant original research.  Beemer 69  19:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete = beemer hits it on the nail- what publication is likely to use 'brat'? If they don't then its original research to label them as such. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some publications do use the phrase "spoiled brat" even in their titles. Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:26, 8 March 2008 (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.