Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of intellectual or highly gifted characters


 * 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 speedy delete via WP:G7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

List of intellectual or highly gifted characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a useless list with poorly defined inclusion criteria. This is a cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a crosscategorization, just a categorization (it's "Xs that are Y", not "Xs that are Y that do Z"). But the lack of any meaningful inclusion criteria seems to be a fatal flaw, and I can't see how this list isn't WP:SYNTH. I'd imagine most fictional protagonists could be defined as "highly gifted" even if they're not necessarily Sherlock Holmes-level geniuses. That's usually part of why they're the hero of the story. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and is way too indiscriminate in its scope. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Hello ! I'm the main author of this article. Don't worry I will improve it just as you can do. By the words < >, I especially mean < > if it's clearer. I think that lists on wikipedia are a great way to learn and not only for entertainment. There are many links to others encyclopedia articles to be (re-)discovered Éthann (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no specificity, and the offered clarification "very good at class" only makes the inclusion criteria even harder to understand. It's just too vague. Baconfry (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Baconfry Maybe I could submit another title like : List of intellectual, geek or (highly-)gifted children characters. Éthann (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "List of child prodigies in works of fiction" would be better suited? Baconfry (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would definitely be a better scope, but it would still have to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as simply listcruft. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is listcruft and subjective as well. Frmorrison (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK everybody ! My mistake. The page about child prodigies in works of fiction already exists :List of fictional child prodigies. So you can erase this page if you want even if my subject was a little more complete. I just want, by the way, say my surprise because some of you told it was a bad subject as an argument for deletion, whereas IT IS a wiki page. See you a next time ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Éthann (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, that's far too subjective. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:33, 19 July 2014 (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.