Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mad scientists (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus sure did a complete 180 on this one. If someone thinks this can be fixed/revised then let me know and I'll be happy to userfy or incubate this. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

List of mad scientists
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This list violates WP:NOTDIR because it is a list of fictional scientists which may a certain subjective stereotype. There is no clear way to determine whether any individual member of this list can be considered a "mad scientist", and the judgement is often purely subjective and based on ones interpretation of a work. None of the entries are currently cited, and while deletion is not a route to solving problems within the article, the lack of sourcing is a serious problem with the article which must be sorted within a reasonable timeframe if it is to be kept. Anthem 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This is very subjective, and in theory ought to rely on broad external consensus that every scientist on the list is deemed mad...external consensus which, by its own nature, will be inevitably subjective and open to interpretation. The Nathaniel Hawthorne example -- the second item on the list -- is a perfect illustration of how subjective this list is by its very nature. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or fundamentally re-envision. I'm less concerned about WP:NOTDIR here as the fact that, as it stands, this entire list is a giant collection of original research.  A list at this title is probably possible; the core concept is unquestionably notable.  At a minimum, that will need clear references to reliable sources, preferably ones that discuss the characters as mad scientists rather than just dropping the phrase.  What is at the title currently lacks that for literally every entry.  One way or another, we cannot keep this in its current form. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most aren't even scientists at all . Seriously though, as it was said the inclusion criteria is subjective enough that this can't fail OR. We'll have to wait until Rolling Stone makes a top 100 - frankieMR (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 *  Rename list of fictional scientists  If the 'mad' part is a problem then remove it, as well as any trivial entries, citing would then be easy enough. Someoneanother 23:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There already is a a list of fictional scientists at List of fictional scientists and engineers. Anthem 08:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea how I missed that, in which case I'm neutral. Someoneanother 00:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename and revise the comments about OR seem fundamentally on point. A good list of fictional mad scientists and an article about the fictional archetype of the "mad scientist" and its evolution would both be interesting and encyclopedic articles.  This one seems to split the two and ends up doing neither one well. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's Mad scientist, perhaps some could me merged there - frankieMR (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per nomination. The article that falls into what Wikipedia is not, by being a list of loosely associated topics. Most of the characters aren't notable for themselves, relying on listing the notable series in which they appear, and most of these characters aren't notable for being "mad" scientists. The inclusion criteria is subjective and arbitrary and, as pointed out by others, it relies on original research. Jfgslo (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per wel-reasoned nom. --Crusio (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect to List of fictional scientists and engineers. As Anthem and Crusio ably point out, we're not a collection of loosely associated topics. Examples in the "mad scientist" article supported by reliable sources are OK; a list of all fictional scientists, possibly with short and sourced description of each character, is also probably OK. An intrinsically subjective list is not OK. This is great for TV Tropes - not for here. Neutralitytalk 21:58, 3 June 2011 (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.