Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction


 * 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 except signature updates.  

The result was no consensus. The materials linked by the Pumpkin King are very much on point. Redirecting Otenba to Tomboy would be an editorial matter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of tomboys in fiction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While I wouldn't be opposed to a well-written, well-sourced article called Tomboys in fiction or Tomboys in popular culture, this sprawling list consists entirely of original research and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating:

I am bundling the article Otenba into this deletion discussion because it consists of nothing more than a short dictionary definition and a sprawling, unsourced list of fictional tomboys similar to the List of tomboys in fiction.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This article dose NOT deserve to be deleted, nothing here has to be from an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiacatcrimson (talk • contribs) 15:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Although "Otenba" probably should be an article, since it's described as the "Japanese equivalent of a tomboy", I agree with the nominator that this is mostly an excuse to use that definition, and then to make a list. Like most equivalents, I imagine that there are some differences between "tomboy" and "otenba", although they are similar.  As for "List of tomboys in fiction", most of the persons on the list are based on a person's idea and it's probably better to delete.  "Tomboy" is kind of an archaic label, isn't it?  Kind of like "uppity" to describe a person of another race who didn't know their "place" in society?   Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Archaic? Here's an article from just 6 hours ago which makes it very topical. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the writer of the article says that the word "tomboy" is "so anachronistic as to be practically meaningless". The word is still in some use but the article indicates that there is some dispute as to whether it is still appropriate or overly stereotypical. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep List of tomboys in fiction I checked the well-known-to-me case of George in the Famous Five which is there and seems fine. The nomination of unencyclopedic and OR is weak with no example of contentious cases.  The article just needs work to improve the sourcing and prune any dubious entries. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But Delete Otenba as English Wikipedia is not a Japanese dictionary Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the first. A fair portion of the first list can probably be sourced -- I don't know how many times I've seen Jo March and Nan from Little Men, to take the first two, referred to as tomboys. If the problem is OR, then the fix is to insist on sourcing -- and if that means adding Fact to each and every item on the list until either someone provides one or a reasonable deadline has passed, so be it. I note that for many of the list items with articles of their own, if being a tomboy is a significant aspect of their character, there's a good chance a source in the article can be copied. (No opinion yet on the second.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember the Famous Five from childhood (it was a series of British mysteries for kids) and that was a long time ago, from an era when it was considered unusual for a girl to wear "boy clothes" instead of dresses and skirts. While Warden, like I, can distinguish between a girl who defied the limitations of the time that she lived in, versus a modern-day girl that someone puts a tomboy label upon, I don't think that most contributions to the list show that type of consideration.  Mandsford (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep needs some work done. Having this information assembled is a useful list, and serves to organise things from the aspect of character. They're equally useful--the Japanese one appears so because the contents is generally less familiar, so we see the need of it more. The material is sourced from the descriptions of the fictions; there should be no problem finding a source for each which refers to each character asa tomboy if it is challenged--another case for discussion on the article talk page rather than AfD. Mandsford gives a good reason why the list needs editing. DGG (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unsourced OR. Support nominator's idea of making Tomboys in popular culture, though. —TreasuryTag talk contribs  18:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep notable phenomenon but the OR concern is justified. JJL (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The article is useful for people who have a hard time finding articles about characters relating to the topic. Mythdon (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's just a list based on arbitrary criteria. Who decides what characters are "otenba"? This is 100% OR. --DAJF (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete them both as usual, a fannish bit of original research. the otenba could be salvaged if someone could find some notable discussion of the phenomenon, though again the list would require reliable discussion of each case. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No recommendation yet. While I'm not enthusiastic about the term "tomboy", I suspect that sources could be found that indeed identify many of these characters as tomboys (and everyone mentioned in the article is fictional, so there is no WP:BLP problem). If a source is added to the article for each character, then the original research problem could be solved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete List of tomboys in fiction. The list has not been sufficiently sourced yet. No opinion as to Otenba. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is, however, only a few months old so it not being sufficient sourced "yet" should not be a problem as Wikipedia does not have a deadline. In any event it has improved from the original version versus the current version and we should give it more time to improve further as editors clearly seem willing to better this article.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But only two of the character listings have been sourced, and there are well over 100 characters on the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem. Rather, it's a start.  We don't have a deadline on Wikipedia; we're only several years old, whereas paper encyclopedias have had hundreds of years two develop now.  Every second spent in an AfD is time not spent finding sources.  It's like the X Files with "The Truth is Out There"; considering how bizarrely massive the Internet is and how many books, journals, and magazines are out there, sources exist for just about every topics any of us can imagine.  I have typed in some incredibly obscure terms and people on Academic Search Primer and J-Stor and it people have academic interest in just about everything we can conceive of, which is perfectly fine if not encouraged.  The more we catalog and organize human knowledge the better our species is for it and I whole-heartedly believe that there is no such thing as useless knowledge anyway.  Snow, however, which I am about to attempt to shovel, well...  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But the characterization of being a "tomboy" is based on gender stereotypes. I can accept the idea of identifying these characters according to how they allegedly fail to comply with the attitudes and behaviors of being a girl only if that characterization is supported by independent sources. The sources that have been supplied indicate that Jo from Little Women and George from the Famous Five have been characterized by others as being tomboys. But in the absence of sources, the inclusion of a character on this list is an endorsement by Wikipedia of those gender stereotypes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough books have been written with "tomboy" or "tomboys" in the title even that we should be able to pull something like this article off successfully once we patiently allow our editors to use these sources. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Tomboy is a recognized English word for this social phenomenon and has been in use (according to the wikipedia article Tomboy) since 1592, so I don't get the objection to the word. There is no "original research" involved in the Literature section at least, and the handful of names I checked out from "Other Media" seem to be legitimate, with the possible exception of "Velma" from Scooby-Doo. I don't know anything about Anime and Manga so I have no opinion on that front.Torkmusik (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After you get past 1592, here's what's next in the article... and this is what I'm talking about: "There is a perceived correlation between tomboys and lesbianism. While it is true that some tomboys later reveal a lesbian identity in their adolescent or adult years, masculine behavior typical of boys but displayed by girls is not a true indicator of one's sexual orientation. Throughout their history, tomboys have had to contend with the stigma of presumed lesbianism or the accusation of wanting to be male. Both assumptions were categorically refuted by twentieth-century psychology, which established the normalcy of the tomboy experience among girls of all identities. However, for many, the tomboy stage is the first manifestation of a gender-fluid life journey." The whole idea that a girl who chooses to, say, play basketball, should be labelled is a holdover from olden days when people were expected to "know their place".   There are characters who were described as "tomboys" back from those days, but editors can pretty well throw any girl's name on this list... and they have.  For those who think that this list is "useful", merge it back into the article, where there's some context provided.  Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notable topic, discriminate list, covered in academic journals and books. I am not opposed to a rename of the article as Tomboys in fiction that expands on the information covered in these sources, but still includes the relevant examples from the list. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if a girl is specifically referred to as a tomboy in the work in which she appears, it makes a difference whether the narrator calls her that, or some other character calls her that to insult her, or she calls herself that as an act of defiance, or … If she is not so described in the work, matters become even more subjective, and the concept of "source" becomes problematic in the extreme. The second sentence of this article's lead is a perfect example of the sort of unverifiable original research and opinion that underlies every actual or potential entry in the list. Deor (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The three sentences that mention what a tomboy is are unsourced and rubber enough to cover most fictional females. There are no clear standards.  Actual examples are unsourced and seem based only on editors personal opinion.  For example, in the anime section female combat pilots are mentioned, yet female captains of warships are not. Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * List separately Though the articles in question are similar in topic, they are not similar in deletion rationale. One is nominated as an unmaintainable list, and the other is a dicdef. Linking these together is a recipe for a DRV overturn. -- RoninBK T C 06:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For Otenba, now that I've thought about it: Keep and remand to the Anime-and-Manga and Japan wikiprojects for cleanup and sourcing. A little poking about convinces me that a substantive article can be written about the subject, especially one that contrasts how an otenba is like and unlike a western tomboy. It could be a neat and comprehensive article, after the list gets hella sourcing and pruning, and it's the potential we're supposed to be looking at here. If nothing little has been done after a time (I suggest a few months, given sources would be largely in Japanese) then revisit the issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: article gets 600 views a month. Otenba got 1500 views in february. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment And it's no less relevant to point out that the average price of gas is $3.15 a gallon nationwide, and Will Farrell's new movie "Semi-Pro" did pretty good at the box office this past weekend. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete List of tomboys in fiction and redirect otenba to tomboy. I cannot shake that the former is nothing more then original research and question whether the list serves a useful purpose. The later is simply a Japanese term but with no evidence that there is a uniquely Japanese aspects to it. And even if there are, why they shouldn't be covered by the main article (tomboy). --Farix (Talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But it's not original research. It does not offer a thesis or argument and it is based on primary and secondary evidence.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that such-and-such character is a tomboy is original research without sources to back up the claims. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Saying that "sources are out there" isn't enough either. You have to provide the sources. In fact, when I looked through the anime section of the list, there were several characters that were clearly not tomboys but where on the list simply because they are strong female characters, female warriors/fighters, look boyish, or simply because they have a violent side to their character or short tempered (tsundere). So is that a verifiability challenge to all of the uncited characters on the list? I guess you can say that it is. --Farix (Talk) 12:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a reason to sprinkle fact tags on the list - it is not a reason to delete. See List of Internet phenomena which has been through this and is fine now.  Colonel Warden (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I attempted to remove several anime and manga characters that were clearly not tomboys and tagged the rest of the section as original research. But this morning, I found someone has reverted the cleanup calling it vandalism. So I fact-tagged everything in the section and added the original research tags as well. The same editor also restored a similar list that was deleted through AFD as original research, which I've reverted. These lists are just magnets of original research and POV pushing, but ultimately they do not benefit the subjects they cover or Wikipedia. So I stand by by delete position. --Farix (Talk) 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone one better and just deleted the entire anime section. This is the English language wikipedia and so foreign language terms like otenba don't belong here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And the list was restored, without the cleanup tags. *sigh* I've put the or and fact tags back because the problems with that portion of the list still haven't been addressed. As for otenba, I think it's better covered by the tomboys article. That is if it can be reliably sourced that the concept of a tomboy is significantly different in Japan then in the rest of the world. --Farix (Talk) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge both into Tomboys in popular culture. The concept surely passes WP:V and WP:N -- there are WP:RS already in the "List" article, and more can be found easiy.  There's a whole book just on characters in "To Kill a Mickingbird." Bearian (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and created such an article. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Tomboys in popular culture, which is in better shape than this article and more appropriately titled. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keepby Merging into Tomboys in popular culture as there is a high degree of overlap to the point where there is little value in two separate articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note to closing admin. Tomboys in popular culture is nearly the exact same list as List of tomboys in fiction, but simply under a new name. So if this AFD is closed as delete, it should be deleted as well. --Farix (Talk) 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At least one or the other should be kept with the other redirected without deleting. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Destined to be POV-ridden, unless each and every listing receives a citation. That isn't going to happen.    RGTraynor  15:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't say with certainty what will or will not happen and there's no reason why eventually sources can't and won't be added. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: That is true, if you fancy that there are a lot of reliable sources out there citing this or that fictional character as a tomboy. That aside, however, our directive on Wikipedia is to agressively remove material that fails of sourcing.    RGTraynor  16:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * At the same time our directive is to allow editors the opportunity to find such sources. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:26, 11 March 2008 (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.