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


 * 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. Majorly (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

List of literary works with eponymous heroines

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

In the same vein as Articles for deletion/List of literary works with eponymous heroes (well, at least the bottom half): 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; Esther: A Novel does not "consist of the name of the female protagonist only", not to mention strange inclusions like The Patchwork Girl of Oz. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ultra weak keep 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 per the arguments given in the companion AfD. This list is rather orphaned without its male counter part and there isn't really any good reason to divide this up by gender anyway.  I would say that ultimately this is indiscriminant enough to delete.  Eluchil404 08:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't establish much of a notable connection between the items on the list.  This may have been a closer call for me, but the deletion of the companion article effectively makes this an odd orphan.--Kubigula (talk) 05:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above... Addhoc 13:25, 21 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.