Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroic fictional scientists and engineers


 * 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

List of heroic fictional scientists and engineers

 * — (View AfD)

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keepa common theme in literature and art, particularly science fiction. This list is well-annotated and contains notable examples, conforming to WP:LIST. Tarinth 21:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also suffers from POV problems as "heroic" is completely subjective. Otto4711 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
 * The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation &mdash; Iamunknown 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post &mdash; Iamunknown 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Can you explain what you mean? To me this seems to be a truly bizarre assertion. Of the first ten items on this list, only two have articles for the character in question, so categorising them seems to me to involve at least an 80% loss of information (or alternatively the creation of 8 AfD-fodder sub-stubs). Then there's the loss of explanatory text: in the same 10 items I make that 125 words out of 177, so that's a loss of 70%. The total loss of information over those ten items converting from list to category: 177 words down to 6, or 96.6% AndyJones 17:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - conversion to a category is inappropriate, because this list adheres to WP:LIST in that it provides well-annotated information on notable subjects. Tarinth 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not adhere to WP:LIST: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources...Even if it might "seem obvious" what qualifies for membership in a list, explicit is better than implicit." This article has no source that defines "heroic". --maclean 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - useful and well-written article which provides lots of links for other articles. --Taraborn 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As good as the others. DGG 03:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a subjective list with no sources. Inconsistent with WP:LIST. They are "herioc" because the Wikipedia contributor says so? --maclean 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no need for even a category. I don't see any way of properly citing this list or making it consistent with WP:NPOV.  There is a real archetype (or two) involved here but I see no evidence that assigning characters to it is anything other than purely subjective.  Eluchil404 11:13, 11 January 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.