Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes


 * 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.  Nish kid 64  02:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of literary works with eponymous heroes

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Actually I don't want to delete this article or its companion List of literary works with eponymous heroines but I do think something needs to be done with them. Didn't want to use the talk pages because I wanted a broader perspective. "Heroes" is subjective and POV and I'm unsure that there need to be separate articles for male and female characters. So I'm thinking move the article to List of literary works with eponymous protagonists and merging the two articles together but since merging would be a fair amount of work I wanted feedback before doing it. Otto4711 01:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if consensus is that separate lists are wanted then I would move the heroes list to List of literary works with eponymous male protagonists and the female list to List of literary works with eponymous female protagonists. Otto4711 02:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The word "hero" or "heroine" should not be considered "subjective" in this critical context (A character of a "hero" is actually a literary device, some academics would say). Though, "protagonists" would probably work just as well. Given the amount of works named for both male and female characters, I'd say keep the lists separate.  Especially since there are a lot of lists separated by gender. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at the list it includes such entries as Alfie and The Talented Mr. Ripley. These characters are certainly protagonists but they are far from being heroic. Otto4711 02:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, in terms of a critical standpoint, those characters are considered anti-heroes, and it just indicates that they're on the wrong list. Protagonist might be a good synonym, but it's too vague a category. Also, we don't delete articles because someone got it wrong. We improve them. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't need to be lectured on what we do with articles. Note that I said quite clearly that I do not want to delete this article. Otto4711 02:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why did you bring it to AFD? Perhaps a little lecturing would do you good: The little "move" button on top of the page, with a little gumption under WP:BOLD, or maybe a little discussion on the relevant talk pages, and you wouldn't have wasted your (or infinitely worse, my) time. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A lesson in remedial reading would clearly do you infinitely more good than any half-assed "lecture" of yours would do me. To state it again for the challenged among us: I didn't want to move the articles on my own because I wanted to get feedback from a wider spectrum of people before taking action. I didn't want to use the talk pages because, again, I wanted feedback from a wider spectrum of people before taking action. Unless some heretofore unknown person is holding a knife to your throat, no one is forcing you to read or respond here, so try sacking up and taking responsibility for your own wasting of your time. Otto4711 03:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Requested moves. And while your at it, might want to bone up on WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL before you head back to working on those crufty intellectually-heavy Dune articles. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 06:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the requested moves link. Should something like this come up in future I shall certainly avail myself of it. I hope in future that should you have the opportunity to point it out to someone else you'll do it in a way that isn't so...hmm, "prickish" would probably violate WP:CIVIL so let's say "brusque" instead. Otto4711 08:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps rename "List of books whose titles are the same as the name of the main character." Except, you know, not that.  Something snazzier.  But the current title is misleading.  Also, please keep it civil.-- Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close This is Articles for Deletion, no deletion is requested. WP:BOOK would be a much better place to take a discussion about revamping these articles. Resolute 06:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for being an exceedingly pointless topic to base a list on. Is there some actual connection between those books other than the fact that they fit some arbitrary criteria chosen by the editors? Some don't even fit the given criteria; The Great Gatsby does not "consist of the name of the male protagonist only", not to mention Robinson Crusoe, whose real title is The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe of York, Mariner: who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an uninhabited Island on the coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pirates. Written by Himself. '  (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete now that its brought up. Per above. --24.225.154.2 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, arbitary list that fits WP:NOT perfectly. Nuttah68 11:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nominator may not want to have this deleted, but if he was looking for feedback and to have other matters assessed, that's what the article's talk page is for. Now that it's here, I believe it's open to the community to consider whether or not it ought to be kept. I do not see the encyclopedic value of this article. It simply appears to be trivia and nothing more. Agent 86 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because being an eponymous hero/protagonist/whatever does not actually have encyclopaedic connotations, thereby rendering this a trivia list. GassyGuy 05:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per GassyGuy. He summed up my argument better than I did. Oh, and WP:NOT, too. Axem Titanium 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultra weak keep (copied from the sister debate on eponymous heroines) The debate is whether or not we consider this to be an indiscriminate collection of information. Although the list could use a bit of cleanup, the info in there is easily verifiable so WP:NOT is really the sole thing to worry about. While I personally see no great value in such a list, it could be kept on the grounds that Wikipedia is not paper. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is perhaps not paper, but we do have standards. One important one is WP:NOR, which is violated whenever a list requires a "judgment call" as to whether something fits on the list or not. By way of example, List of characters in Harry Potter is not OR-a character either is in Harry Potter or is not, that requires no judgment on the part of an editor. On the other hand, a hypothetical List of evil characters (and that better not turn blue!) would require OR-who decides who is evil? Would Darth Vader qualify, given his eventual turnaround? This would require a judgment call and would therefore be an unacceptable subject-and so does this one. Seraphimblade 06:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand an "eponymous hero" isn't really a judgement call, unless we're nitpicking about the term "hero". Other than that, a fictional character who also happens to be the title of the work requires no judgement call. Pascal.Tesson 05:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as was already pointed out, there are some debatable entries on the list (e.g., The Great Gatsby), so this one isn't quite as clear cut as the aforementioned List of characters in Harry Potter, even though I agree it is less subjective than would be a list of evil characters. GassyGuy 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, not that I feel very strongly about the whole thing but if the only argument against this list is that it should be cleaned up, then let's clean it up. How hard can that be? The argument should be about whether a "perfect" list on this topic would be worth keeping. In my mind it's a fairly close call. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument actually wasn't that it should be cleaned up, but rather that being an eponymous hero in itself is trivial, not encyclopaedic. I was merely pointing out that this isn't a completely objective criterium. GassyGuy 02:55, 17 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.