Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of occupations of secret identity personas of fictional 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 Delete. There appears to be a rough consensus that, at the very least, there are significant OR issues with this list. All the delete !votes make strong arguments questioning the standard for inclusion in this list and how it'd be categorized. Editors seeking a merge also seem to agree, at least in part, that this as a stand-alone article is problematic. I think there's agreement among all sides that the idea of secret identities for superhero characters is notable, but there isn't consensus for a a merge to Secret identity. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

List of occupations and roles of secret identity personas of fictional characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is some kind of list, but the inclusion criteria is very vague. It violates WP:LSC policy. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

(PLEASE NOTE The title of the article has been changed removing reference to roles to further reduce ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregkaye (talk • contribs) 13:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC) )


 *  Speedy Keep Really, the inclusion criteria is not only utterly explicit and precise, but in my opinion, unnecessarily narrow. Harder to understand than you would prefer? Sure, go ahead and edit to make it clearer. But vague? No.
 * ''"This list relates to the occupations and roles of secret identity personas of fictional characters at times following the development of at least one alter-ego persona associated with the character and within situations in which the secret identity retains a significant level of secrecy." Anarchangel (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep In what universe is this list too vague? Delete It has been brought to my attention that the notability of the list is also a problem. I am Quibilia. (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge  Delete  to Secret identity. Please see comment below. Non-notable topic per stand-alone list criteria. No reliable sources available. The topic could be dealt with in a section in Secret identity, but that article is precipitously close to its own AfD. Philg88 ♦talk 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 *  Keep , (edit: change of mind following Postdlf's comments below) Keep(again change mind after realising that Postdlf's comments aren't don't give valid reason for delete). Gregkaye (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC) secret identities are notable in that characters that have them frequently consider them to be of great value. Their noteworthiness is also demonstrated in fact the secret identities of Superman and Wonder Woman have been afforded their own Wikipedia pages despite the fact that these topics could be dealt with within their own sections of title articles.   All the items placed on the list are easily corroborated.  Any item that may be placed on the list that cannot be corroborated can be challenged and removed.  Gregkaye (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles on the secret identities of Superman and Wonder Woman are not lists and therefore not related to this discussion, which is about list notability. Philg88 ♦talk 08:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have given explanations as to why the secret identities of fictional characters are a notable topic and can go on. The article supplies a compilation of important facets of the cover stories that characters use and, in many cases, the occupations mentioned constitutes lifestyle maintenance method on which the character depends.  All the information provided has been noted in various sources.  Gregkaye (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, totally unclear why the jobs of superheroes and the like, when they are not playing superhero, would be a notable list subject. Fram (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing that is often unclear is whether it is the persona with the job "playing" the heroic or other persona or whether it is the heroic or other persona that is "playing" the role of the persona with the job. Perhaps the X-men "played" at fighting off the Sentinels and perhaps Macbeth "played" at being king. Arguably, it was Macbeth that had more choice but I just mention this for comparison.  The point is that, from a characterisation perspective, the heroic or other personas belonged to characters who did their best to cope with typically challenging situations by a variety of means.  The article lists some of those means.  Gregkaye (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And? The relevance to this discussion? The heroes/villains had "real-life" characters with "real-life" jobs (in their fictional universe). Some of these "real life" characters are independently notable, the others are included in the article on the hero/villain. We get that. To jump from this to having a list of these "real life" jobs is not explained though. Are the jobs of the real-life characters of superheroes a notable enough concept to spend a list on, or are we descending one step too low on the ladder of notability here? I believe this is taking things too far, not all verifiable aspects of notable concepts are acceptable list topics. Fram (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep The fictional characters are notable, and the normal editing process can keep out those who are not notable or who do not have secret identities. Many of these are from comics, and have coverage in books and specialized websites which appear to be reliable sources, so sources exist to reference the article, if anyone doubts that Superman's secret identity as a reporter or Spiderman's secret identity as a photographer can be verified, and it can be verified that the secret identity is an important part of the whole fictional franchise. See for example "The Contemporary Comic Book Superhero" edited by Angela Ndalianis, Routledge, 2009 where in chapter 7 Greg Smitht says "The secret identity is one of the most persistent tropes in superhero comics..." and " Comics scholars have posited a wide range of explanation for this continuing presence of the secret identity." The chapter also lists earlier fiction which featured a secret identity such as "The Count of Monte Cristo," The Scarlet Pimpernel," "Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde," and "The mask of Zorro." It then lists Superman's Clark Kent, Daredevil's Matt Murdock, Iron Man's Tony Starks, Flash's Barry Allen, The Atom's Ray Palmer, and Batman's Bruce Wayne.  The guideline cited as a basis for deletion says that "minor characters in Dilbert" is an acceptable list. I maintain that these alter egos of notable fictional characters are also suitable for a standalone list.  Edison (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Actually secret identities are notable since their characters appear on television, in books, in comic books, and in plays just to name a few. I agree with Gregkaye in that: "Superman and Wonder Woman have been afforded their own Wikipedia pages despite the fact that these topics could be dealt with within their own sections of title articles." Well said kind sir, well said! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What policy reason do you have for a "speedy keep"? Speedy keep gives five possible reasons, none of these apply here. Further: no one disputes that some secret identities are notable, but that doesn't mean that a list of the jobs people have in their secret identity is a notable concept for a list. If you want to argue for a keep, you have to indicate why this article is notable, not why some related but not under dispute concept is notable. Fram (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to argue for a delete, you have to indicate why this article is not notable. Fans regard types of character that have secret identities to be notable.  Fans value the characters and the characters value their secret identities.  The roles of the secret identities mentioned are important aspects of characters.  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=clark+kent+cosplay&tbm=isch  Yes there is play involved with these characters but fans still take note.  Gregkaye (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't prove a negatove. People wanting to keep an article have to show why it is notable, one can't prove that something is not notable. And what is or isn't notable is thankfully not decided by fans, but by reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK then - you have to at least give specific indications as to why you think this article is not notable. Thankfully what is or isn't notable is not decided by issues like belief.  There have to be clear arguments. Gregkaye (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The characters are notable, that is not under discussion. Secret identities are a notable aspect of superheroes and the like. So your arguments are very valid, if this was an AfD for List of secrect identity personas of fictional characters. But please check the actual list under discussion, which is not what you are arguing for, but a list of one characteristic of these personae. Fram (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The secret identities are more humdrum and placid than the superhero or supervillain personnas. Their professions or characteristics are of encyclopedic importance (at least by "minor characters in Dilbert" standards as apply to Wikipedia). That is why "super-x" needs "mild mannered-y".  "The Wolfman" in his everyday life was not Count Dracula. The Scarlet Pimpernel was not Mr Hyde.   It would have been bizarre, like a mild mannered photographer having a secret identity as a mild mannered reporter, or Superman being secretly Batman, or Underdog being secretly Mighty Mouse. The contrast was important to the success of the fictional franchises, as noted by the ref and others one finds at Google Book search. Edison (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It starts an AFD off on the wrong foot when the nominator cites a guideline and claims it is a policy. It helps if you explain how this list violates the guideline, which says, for example, that a list of minor characters from Dilbert is an acceptable list. Edison (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have moved this comment down, please don't insert your comments out of chronological order, certainly not when it is obviuos that you are arguing for a different list than what is at AfD. Fram (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR if nothing else, should justify pointing out right at the top of an AFD the nominator's false claim that a policy calls for deletion when a guideline is being cited, and that without any explanation or justification. The AFD is defective if such a false claim is made in the nomination with any correction buried at the end of a long block of text, and such an error could be a basis for deletion review if the article were deleted. And you are wrong claiming that I am discussing some other list. I am perplexed that  it is so "obviuos" to you that I don't even know what article the AFD is about.  Edison (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were discussing this list, then most of your arguments were totally irrelevant: " The fictional characters are notable, and the normal editing process can keep out those who are not notable or who do not have secret identities. " That the characters are notable is not under discussion. " it can be verified that the secret identity is an important part of the whole fictional franchise . " So? Not under discussion. "Greg Smitht says "The secret identity is one of the most persistent tropes in superhero comics..." and " Comics scholars have posited a wide range of explanation for this continuing presence of the secret identity."" have no bearing on why this list of occupations is in any notable and keep-worthy. Finally, most damning, is your conclusion: " I maintain that these alter egos of notable fictional characters are also suitable for a standalone list." The topic of the list is not "alter egos of notable fictional characters". Fram (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fram, please do the following. Take a moment to consider the various people that you know and what they do.  Then take a good look at the list and ask yourself any of the following questions.  Is it not notable that there are four business magnates, four reporters and three lawyers on a relatively short list?  Is it not notable that there are two aristocrat types on the list so far but both of them are amongst the first of the characters with secret identities to be have been conceived? Is it not notable that the only office clerk comes from a type of spoof superhero movie?  Other similar questions can be asked and I'd consider the answer to all these questions as a certain yes.  Also Edison's arguments were relevant.  They clearly demonstrate that there are people who take note of things such as the items in the list.  That was enough.  For whatever reason you also did not to respond to the contents of Edison's last post.  Please consider the content contained here. Gregkaye (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Answer: As a nominator, I have to answer this (and other) comments. First of all, it is not true that I claimed that the policy calls for an article to be deleted if the guideline is not followed. I said nothing of a kind. I said that this article (in my opinion) does not follow the guideline, that the inclusion criteria is not properly defined, and that I think those are the reasons to delete the article. I never said that the article has to be deleted if the guideline is not followed. My opinion is that this article (list) should be deleted because the inclusion criteria is quite stupid. First of all, there are millions of fictional characters, many of them have some "secret personas", but there is no precise criteria to define "secret persona", especially in fictional characters. There are no reliable sources that cover this kind of list, and so I doubt it's notability. The fact that the list contains many famous people is totally irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. For example, I can make a "list of actors whose mothers' middle names starts with 'j'". That list would certainly include many famous and popular actors, but would be totally useless, as this one is. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your actual comment was that "the inclusion criteria is very vague" while the inclusion criterial was actually very specific. Your point now is that the criteria is not properly defined.   User: postdlf had already made a similar point (below) in mentioning a perceived lack of a threshold for inclusion.  Because of the positioning of entries I did not see your comment until now and apologise for my slow reply.  Responses to issues raised are presented below but for now I should mention that I have changed the criteria from a previously used set of specific criteria to a new set of specific criteria.  This is not to say that I think there was anything wrong with the old set.  I very much doubt that the page would grow to any great size but if it did it would be easy to edit it down with an application of the new set of criteria.  The criteria states that: Requirements for inclusion in these list further include: [1]characters having made regular and substantial contributions to given story lines (supporting characters being excluded) [and 2] occupations that play a substantial part in the characterisation of secret identity persona.  With or without these additional criteria I can't think of any specific characters that fits into either the General fiction or Science Fiction categories.  In General fiction the Lone Ranger is described as a former Texas Ranger so even he doesn't comply.  In Science fiction the only characters whose eligibility for the list is found in reliable sources and which I knew are [1] : Connor MacLeod who spent significant time in the film Highlander as antiques dealer Russell Nash, [2] The Doctor from Dr Who who spent a large part of two (~50 min) episodes having been changed into human form as school teacher John Smith and [3] The Master, again from Dr Who, who spent most of an episode similarly changed and taking the role of scientist Professor Yana.  In Science fiction I can also think of various incidental characters that appear in the Men in Black comics and movies.  Given the context of a list that included lead characters like the Scarlet Pimpernel and Superman I doubted that anyone would bother with incidental characters but, all the same, I thought it would be worth modifying the criteria just to keep these bases covered. Gregkaye (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

 comment change of mind, delete  again change mind I registered "keep" above (and take out following strike through)  Even if someone were to consider all superheros for the list (which, even if permitted, i have no certainty that anyone would be likely to do) I suspect that the list would not be excessively long. First we might look for characters with pseudonyms and this instantly excludes characters like Thor, Emma Frost and a number of characters of alien origin. Then we might look for characters that have secret identities and as far as I am aware this would exclude the likes of the fantastic four, Professor Xavier, Captain America, Wolverine, J'onn J'onzz and any character that is discovered by the system before before they don mask and spandex. Then we need to look for characters that play a regular role within their secret identities that isn't centrally about being a superhero. This would rule out characters in full-time hero situations including many of the X-men, Avengers and Wildcats and other characters in publicly or privately funded groups. As you note there are also characters that have not got to a stage of character development that details their non super role in society and perhaps these kind of characters should be discounted anyway. Furthermore I doubt that there would be any great impetus to add characters that have been long out of print to the lists. Out of interest I added the character Raven but once I saw it in print it was obvious that it was related to a different time from other characters in the list and I could not be bothered to go further. And even if contributors were driven to include every superhero with a secret identity with a defined role, I still don't think the list would be excessively long. Yes the Marvel list of characters goes on for several pages but, in these listings, each character is afforded an average of about 180 words in the character descriptions attached to the "list" and furthermore only a small proportion of the characters of the Marvel list fit the criteria used here. The list here is mainly composed of names and links. As noted superheros are listed by company, by fictional team, by power, etc. I'm proposing that something about the characters back story might be included in that etc. and with this in mind we can note that one of the most commonly used getting to know you questions is "what do you do?" Its a question that can usually be answered quite succinctly. Thanks for your input on She-Hulk. I had assumed that if the secrecy of the Clark Kent identity could be preserved by a pair of glasses then changes from an expanded muscular form, green skin and an enraged personality would have done the same for the mild mannered Jennifer Walters. I'm still curious to know whether it wasn't at a later stage that her secret identity was blown but for now I presume it's best to remove her from the list. Another possible use for information in the article could be under a title such as "list of civilian occupations of super powered characters". Even so it still may be of use to restrict the scope of the article. In its talk page I have suggested the placement of three limitations to the scope of the lists involving [1] characters that consistently make central contributions of given story lines, [2] characters first published in English or characters that have gained a widespread publication in English, and [3] characters in film and literature from any any time or characters that have appeared in comics within the modern age of comic books spanning from the mid 1980s to the present. Please comment either here or in that talk page. Gregkaye (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, nearly all superhero characters created over the 75 year history of the genre have secret identities. I see no meaningful threshold for inclusion here that would prevent this from sliding into listing nearly every superhero character (and keep in mind that even when subdivided by publishing company, we still have to subdivide further by letter because there are so many), and even limiting to notable ones (i.e., those with standalone articles) would be ridiculously long and just duplicate other lists organized by the ways we expect them to (by company, by fictional team, by power, etc.). Another concern is that grouping them by occupation or "role" may violate WP:SYNTH, because it is making comparisons between characters that reliable sources have not necessarily made and that may or may not be meaningful, but instead purely coincidental and superficial at best. Sometimes writers actually did some research into what went into depicting a job, sometimes not. Sometimes it had a significant impact on the character's narrative, sometimes not. Note also that not all superheroes who have "civilian" lives depicted (careers apart from crimefighting) have secret identities, yet the creator of this list has equivocated the two distinct concepts (e.g., She-Hulk has a civilian life as a lawyer but her "real" identity of Jennifer Walters is not secret). It is probably possible to write a prose article on the topic of superhero secret or civilian identities, or the depiction of various occupations in comics, if sources can be found analyzing and commenting on that, with examples given where sources point to them as examples, but an unbounded list such as this can't work. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note also that I was presuming the list was or could be limited to just superhero fiction, which would make it better (though not salvageable, as I explained); the list's creator obviously has no such intention, adding everything from the Highlander to the Doctor alongside whatever random superhero characters he has thought of so far. This list is pure OR and truly indiscriminate in conception and execution. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Postdlf. This has potential to be an unmanageable mess which is already starting to be realized, and the listing by occupation intead of by character makes the list useless. -- Finngall   talk  22:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry chaps that it took some time to see the validity of postdlf's argument. In my view it was the first negative argument here to carry weight but should have recognised this more quickly.  Any advice that can be given as to how to use asimilar content with a meaningful threshold will be gratefully received. Gregkaye (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per postdlf. Sven Manguard   Wha?  23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like postdlf said, there are fundamental issues that I'm not sure can be solved.  Most importantly, the inclusion criteria is unmanageably wide.  If there is academic interest, common careers can be covered in secret identity.  A list this indiscriminate really does no good, and there's no evidence that it satisfies WP:LISTN.  Some editors may find it interesting, but that's not a notability guideline. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have removed a very lengthy coment by Carriearchdale, which was placed in the middle of another discussion and completely ruined the chances of seeing who said what, when, and in reply to who. This was her comment, which started by repeating part of a post I made with additional "comment" and bolding added by Carriearchdale (without any indication that she did this), and which after her post (mainly reprints of comments by others) repeated without context a discussion between Edison and me as well, all of it with very strange timestamps (it makes no sense to have "today" as the date...). Feel free to reinsert the comment at an appropriate place and in an appropriate format, but this was plainly disruptive. Fram (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional: now that we are busy with this article anyway, can someone please tell Carriearchdale that her edit to the article really is not an improvement? She doesn't seem to accept comments from me. Fram (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment from Carriearchdale ciao!!! This outrageous, frankly shocking, and quite appalling behavior by fram during this afd discussion must be stopped. frams platitudes and directions to others in this afd discussion have gotten to the point where fram is exhibiting disruptive behavior here, and is being misleading to all the discussers here by his actions during this afd! If these behaviors he has been exhibiting here do do not stop immediately, I would possibly have to decribe many of his actions here bullying and  being totally disruptive, and do please make note that fram is not helping to improve this discussion here with his misleading tactics. My post that I made earlier was REVERTED by frm!!! During an Afd??? fram reverts a succinct and well written post that showed my opinion and or vote of KEEP or Speedy keep???  apparently fram does not agree with my vote to keep. ciao!!!Carriearchdale (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not remove your "speedy keep" !vote. I noted quite clearly what I reverted (I'll leave the discussion of whether it was "succeinct and well written" to others). Fram (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * comment  factual correction truth adjustment? what ever any user wants to use as the euphmism for misleading behavior. I said quote My post that I made earlier was REVERTED by frm!!! quote     not what you have misleadingly stated here just now:    quote *I did not remove your "speedy keep" !vote. I noted quite clearly what I reverted quote               fram can just not handle the truth!!! ciao!!!   Carriearchdale (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * After 12,000 edits here, I'd expect to know how to use appropriate formatting for your comments in a discussion; please follow the standard bullet points and indenting that all other editors are using here. I would also suggest you copyedit for punctuation and not use histrionic capitalization and bolding as those issues also impair readability, and in an online forum convey a shrill tone. Finally, on your disagreement with Fram about her removal of your comment, you dumped a wall of text in the middle of the discussion that was nothing but a copy and paste of others' comments, again using poor formatting that just made a mess of everything. This was not a constructive or coherent addition to this discussion. postdlf (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Musings and suggestions (I hope you don't mind the unconventional post title). Postdlf has helpfully observed that there is no meaningful threshold for inclusion involved in the article which leaves four possibilities: [1] delete the content, [2] work out some clear criteria that will provide a suitable threshold for content, [3] make a judgement that the content will not expand to unmanageable proportions despite a lack of threshold, [4] move content into contexts that have thresholds In regard to [3] we can note that the section of the page regarding superhero related fiction only encompasses 20 lines of text and it already encompasses the majority of widely known superpowered characters that qualify. How large is the list likely to grow?  In regard to [4] I see two options. [a] the article can be split and this action could either be taken now or in the future.  The main possibility that I can see for this is that characters are divided according the time period of the character creation.  For instance characters could be divided into articles related to the Golden Age of Comic Books, the Silver Age of Comic Books, the Bronze Age of Comic Books and the Modern Age of Comic Books.  We may speculate that this may be notable in that it may provide an insight into differences in the writers ideals for their characters at different times. That brings us to the other possibility. [b] As Philg88 suggested in the third post on this page: "The topic could be dealt with in a section in Secret identity".  I have opened this idea up in the talk page of this discussion suggesting the title Sample of occupations and roles of secret identity personas.  I have also removed the references to She-Hulk,  Raven and both Students and staff at the Jean Grey School for Higher Learning and Students and staff at the New Charles Xavier School for Mutants.  We can also note that "roles" only refers to the Scarlet Pimpernel and Zorro. Personally I doubt that this article will expand out of all proportions but there seem to be other options open.    Gregkaye (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First, the talk page of an AFD is not the place for making editing proposals about the article under nomination, but only for meta-discussions about the AFD itself (which are almost never necessary). On the substance of your comments, this all strikes me as original research by you: "the majority of widely known superpowered characters" is subjective and not a meaningful criterion, "this may be notable in that it may provide an insight into differences..." not only completely misunderstands what "notability" means in Wikipedia but also offers your own personal analysis or interpretation as to why this comparison of superhero "civilian" occupations is meaningful. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your main argument against the text seems to have been a fear that the article would grow in size almost exponentially because of a supposed lack of threshold. There is a threshold, not that I think that anyone would approach it, the limit of the possible information.  How many entries (names and links) to superpowered characters do you think that would be? even before we may cut out older characters that have remained unpublished from the equation? "Original research" the list was based on pages like http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StockSuperheroDayJobs .  I started by cutting the content down and checked through the entries but if checking content constitutes research then there is something wrong.  Can you point to any listing entry that has not already been researched by Wikipedia?  If so I will be happy for it to be removed and am more than happy to do that myself.  WP:N states that "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice" which carries with regard to the content presented.  Perhaps you can specify why you think the content is not notable.  There had better be a substantial reason because WP:IAR still applies. Gregkaye (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for deletion based on notability (though if I were, pointing to a TV Tropes page would not cut it as a rebuttal; do we even consider that site a reliable source?). And as you changed your !vote to "delete" above because, you said, of my arguments, I don't know what the disagreement is at this point, unless you have changed your mind again (based on...?). I think your best bet for moving forward would be to give up on this list and post a question at, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics about whether an article or article section on superhero civilian occupations might be feasible somehow, somewhere. Just offer the question, and see what other editors have to say, rather than continually raising new proposals every time a critical point is raised. The regular editors at that Wikiproject are not only very well versed in the subject matter, but also quite familiar with Wikipedia standards and practices. postdlf (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind earlier in the context of two factors. 1] I was unaware of the rule WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY and 2] out of respect to expressed viewpoints regarding perceived lack of threshold. I have responded to others and ask others to try to do the same.  At this precise moment my jury is out regarding the viability of the current form of this article.  You say that you think my best bet for moving forward would be to give up on this list. Based on what? you say I should ask questions.  I've just added another one there.  I previously asked others:  1] How many entries (names and links) to superpowered characters do you think that would be even before we may cut out older characters that have remained unpublished from the equation?  2] Can you point to any listing entry that has not already been researched by Wikipedia?  I also added about notability and, yeh, you responded to that one.....>  The content of the article, at least to its current extent, adds to Wikipedia.  It brings an improvement to Wikipedia.  As I had commented: Take a moment to consider the various people that you know and what they do.  Then take a good look at the list and ask yourself any of the following questions.  Is it not notable that there are four business magnates, four reporters and three lawyers on a relatively short list?  Is it not notable that there are two aristocrat types on the list so far but both of them are amongst the first of the characters with secret identities to be have been conceived? Is it not notable that the only office clerk comes from a type of spoof superhero movie?  Other similar questions can be asked and I'd consider the answer to all these questions as a certain yes.  QUESTION: can you argue otherwise?  The content has value and an expanded content would, in some ways, add further value. In this context my question becomes how can the content best be used?  I respect your concerns on manageability but have asked if you had any perception regarding the potential extent of problems.  This is the kind of thing that would be helpful in finding a way forward. Gregkaye (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I would like to point out that this discussion was opened based on the belief that the subject article covers too broad a category. Shouldn't we be focusing on the given problem, and if, in fact, the list is not notable, open another discussion based on that problem rather than solving all of them in this one? I am Quibilia. (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not how AFD works. We discuss all issues, policies, and guidelines relevant to whether the article should be deleted or kept and are not constrained by the issues raised by the nomination. I don't think notability analysis is relevant either as this isn't about an already existing list, but rather uses the format of a list to try to index information together about notable subjects. So more relevant and useful are WP:LSC, as the nominator raised, and WP:IINFO, WP:LISTPURP, and WP:OR as I and others have at least implicitly raised. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that, I was under a different impression. I have rewritten my argument as such. I am Quibilia. (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue of threshold for inclusion has been mentioned and yet other articles have no threshold for inclusion and are still excepted. A relevant comparison is the List of superhero debuts which will accept all entrants regardless of whether the hero has a secret identity or whether that identity is has another occupation which is active at the concurrently with the activity of the alter ego.  I also suspect that comic book lovers would be more motivated to indicate the actual existence of a character on this page than they would be to mention the job of the heros secret identity and yet the page on Information for "List of superhero debuts" indicates a Page length of just 64,498  bytes even though the page is heavily formated.  Wikipedia's 10,000th largest page has ~95,419 bytes.  I'd also cite a trend that I perceive in comic books against the concept of secret identities being used by heros on a day to day basis.  With the plethora of superheros and superhero teams they don't tend to have so many relationships with non superpowered people.  They don't have such a great need for a mild mannered alter ego as a protective cover for a loved one as they might have in the past. Gregkaye (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Very quickly) Posdif considered that grouping characters by occupation or "role" may violate WP:SYNTH. If the grouping of characters under other categories such as characters from the 1950s doesn't break synth then nor does this.   Gregkaye (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete now that the "roles" portion of the criteria has been removed (always the same anyway: to hide one's identity). What impact does the occupation have on a character's real career? Not much. Peter Parker may be the exception to the rule, as he has to make ends meet, and photographing himself gets a little tricky. As for the rest, you could mostly just switch jobs without having much effect. If Superman were a milkman, it wouldn't change his do-gooding a bit. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename List of secret identities of fictional characters. Simplifying the criteria would make it work. Occupation could be a secondary column. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I would keep this intact with all the listings, not just the secret ones. The goal of an encyclopedia is to be useful to the readers in the way information in acomprehensive reference book is useful, and this information is so. It's not traditional encyclopedic information, which is irrelevant, as one thing we are definitelyNOT is a traditional paper encyclopedia, and the restrictions of earlier centuries do not apply to content any more than to technology. The old EB and its French and German forebears were oriented to the information an educated gentlemen (or someone who wanted to become one or pose as one) would want to know; later encyclopedias were oriented very strongly around the school curriculum. We're neither: our audience is everyone with an internet connection, gentleman or not,  and tho we do not ignore the subjects schools teach, we cover everything education or not that anyone in this very broad audience  would like to do and want information about. The limitations at NOT probably need to be re-visited a little--the founders  were a little too modest.  DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You realise that WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL is a much shorter way of saying the same thing? Just trying to save you some time and effort the next time you want to make the same argument :-) Fram (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or more: Given the limited size and simple verifiability of the data in the list within this article, I can't see how delete would be a valid option.  It's a pity that this list is extraordinarily poorly referenced, but the list is not so long as to invoke NOTSTATS in either context  I don't see an argument for meeting LISTN, but it really doesn't matter, since I tend, for small lists, to prefer consolidation, and even a merged article would not approach WP:SIZE.  --j⚛e deckertalk 03:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. !vote switched to Merge. As I see it, the crux of the issue here is whether this is a notable topic. Put another way has anyone written a book or academic paper on the subject of "occupations and roles of secret identity personas of fictional characters" or similar? No, they haven't, so it isn't a notable topic and doesn't belong in Wikipedia as a stand-alone list. Secret identity on the other hand, is such a topic, which is why this list should be included in that article. Philg88 ♦talk 06:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The main issue that has been dragging on and on has been that of criteria and yet a suggested merge would severely limit options of presenting clear page guidelines. For instance the talk page for the article would be shared with a range of related topics.  The page has been criticised basis that it might get too big.  Now its criticised that it is presently too small.  Opponents of the article seem to be arguing with each other.  Gregkaye (talk) 15:17, 26 June 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.