Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats (3rd 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Could possibly go on and on and on and on, is also sort of subjective as who can possibly be a "spoiled brat" or not. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Two previous discussions ended in delete, but this is a new article unrelated to the previous versions, I think. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research, no concrete definition of the term. Bart Simpson got his name as an anagram of "brat", does that mean he is one? And what about the rancid bratwurst in Jon Arbuckle's fridge? Do those count as spoiled brats too? (I couldn't resist.) Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hardly any value to this list as-is, but it could probably be sourced. Albeit that brat is probably more easily sourced than spoiled .... --Dhartung | Talk 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Neither length nor subjectivity are reasons to delete a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Colonel Warden thinks the nomination is bogus" is not a valid speedy keep rationale. JuJube (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject has been deleted twice before, and although this article may be a little bit more realistic than previous versions in what's considered a "spoiled brat", it breaks several rules-- it's unsourced, original research, indiscriminate list, and no context. I'm glad that Colonel W has weighed in to keep this from being a speedy, and it's possible that this could be improved; if someone tries to make it more of an article, we can reconsider on whether to delete.  I won't hold my breath till I turn blue, however, on an improvement. Mandsford (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft. JuJube (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article has lots of WP:OR Subject is not that notable. Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This article may be different than the previous version, but it's still unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even as good as the previous deleted versions. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The decision of who is or isn't a spoiled brat must be made by the author(s), which we don't allow. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:05, 5 June 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.  Some publications do use the phrase "spoiled brat" even in their titles.  Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mainly as OR, but also sourceless listcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons that prevailed in the previous AfDs (and those articles were better constructed, at least, than this one). Deor (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and suggest protecting the deleted page to prevent recreation. Even if the content isn't exactly the same, exactly same same issues affect this article as the one deleted following the community consensus established during an AfD discussion less than two months ago. Guest9999 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: For the purposes of this discussion, let's have an admin restore the edit history of the previously deleted versions so we can see if we can in fact uses all three versions to create a better article as there is clearly no consensus over months to keep this article deleted. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say that two AfDs with "delete" results (plus this one, which is trending that way) show that there clearly is a consensus—a consensus that an article on this topic should not exist. Deor (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If there really was a clear consensus, the editors would not in good faith keep creating and editing the article, nor would ten or so editors across the three discussions also argue to keep and a for a variety of reasons. A tremendous number of the deletes are repetitive WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:UNENCYC, WP:JNN, etc. "votes."  And just because others argued to delete previously, consensus does change on occasion.  Why not restore the edit history of the various versions and perhaps notify the various article creators as well as participants of the previous AfDs so we can get a better sense of why those creating and working on the article believe it passes our policies and guidelines?  Obviously some members of our community believe it worthwhile and so, let's try to get a better understaning of their position and a broader consensus.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:31, 6 June 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.