Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary characters with nine fingers


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 04:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

List of literary characters with nine fingers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that literary characters had only nine fingers seems pretty trivial to their notability. WjBscribe 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of polydactyl people.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, this isn't a list of people with an extra finger, its a list of people who are missing one. The list counts thumbs as fingers. WjBscribe 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd have to say delete, since it's just an indiscriminate collection of facts.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * delete seems indiscriminate to me. Jeepday 04:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A better (more encyclopedic) article would be "Loss of fingers in literature" or something like that. --N Shar 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't seem Important.Corporal Punishment 04:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- this list should be, as User:N Shar has noted, "Loss of fingers in fiction". Missing or losing a finger is not a defining characteristic of fictional characters.  So, delete. -- Black Falcon 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Terribly indiscriminate list, could go on forever. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  05:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Quite apart from which, who cares? Moreschi Request a recording?
 * Delete Not only irrelevant, trivial, and indiscriminate, it is indeterminate (particularly in that the current limitation to nine begs the creation of articles for 1 through 8 fingers, heaven forbid). Even if it were about fictional characters with any number of missing fingers, I doubt there is more than a handful (sorry, couldn't resist) of characters in which this trait is critical to the story. Agent 86 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but comment I would say delete since the list appears to be unreferenced and possibly involves original research. (Is there a citation available to an already published list analyzing characters with nine fingers?)  However, that being said, I do want to point out that, contrary to some of the opinions above, WP:NOT#IINFO does not deal with "lists of trivia".  That particular section of policy is quite specific on what it covers, and trivia lists are not part of it.  In fact, an attempt to add "almanac style" lists to WP:NOT#IINFO last year failed due to lack of consensus.  Thus I would discount arguments which say it violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Dugwiki 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While WP:NOT#IINFO might not expressly deal with lists or trivia, I disagree that the policy is inapplicable to this article simply because it is a list or because it deals with trivia. The policy stated in the first sentence, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information" always applies. The illustrative list that follows is clearly not exhaustive and does not preclude the application of the general statement of the policy to any class of entries. Agent 86 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are misreading what the phrase "indisriminate collection of items of information" refers to. In this context the section is referring to information that, while true, is still "that which editors may discriminate against".  The first paragraph of the policy section then goes on to specify that the bullet points below are areas which have editorial consensus, and that "other areas do not necessarilly have consensus".  Trivia in particular is one of those areas that does not currently seem to have strong consensus in its definition or how to handle it, and thus is specifically not included anywhere in WP:NOT (let alone in that particular section).
 * Now, it may very well be the case that in the future, if consensus is achieved, a trivia section will be added to policy, possibly under WP:NOT#IINFO. But until that happens, you can't simply use WP:NOT#IINFO as a blanket statement against "trivia", because it is specifically worded so as not to talk about trivia and "cruft", etc.  That section is very specific on what it covers.  FYI, this topic is discussed in greater detail on the WP:NOT talk page, so I'd recommend directing further comments about WP:NOT#IINFO there. Dugwiki 22:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I humbly beg to differ and stand by my reading of the policy. However, this isn't the place for any deeper discussion on the point, so I'll leave it at that. Regardless of the reading of the policy, it appears we both agree that this article cannot stand various forms of analysis and is suitable for deletion. Agent 86 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just in case someone reading this is a new editor, a lot of the discussion we're talking about is at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. There's some interesting debate back and forth on how expansive WP:NOT#IINFO should be, should it or can it handle trivia, and other stuff. Dugwiki 23:24, 16 February 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.