Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tomboys in fiction (3rd 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The result was   keep non-admin closure by nominator (withdrawn as snowballing). -- Mark Chovain 06:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

List of tomboys in fiction
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"Tomboy" is too subjective a term for a list. While everyone pretty much agrees that a tomboy is a girl that behaves like a boy, it's very hard to define girl-like or boy-like behaviours.

One of the most compelling arguments put forth in previous AfDs was that the list is great for illustrating the term. I suggest we instead put a short list of the most stereotypical tomboys in the Tomboy article itself (but I don't think we want to end up with something like this)

Due to the subjective nature, sources are always going to disagree on whether particular characters are tomboys. While there are a couple of books on "Tomboy's in literature", most sources will only reflect the opinions of the authors. There are no experts we can fall back to to say, "Yes, X, Y and Z are a certified Tomboy, while A, B and C are not". -- Mark Chovain 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An incomplete list for an article that does not detail the notability of the subject. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep <> Well referenced article which has been pruned and improved since the previous AFD in March, which resolves issues raised in DGG's keep in AFD 1. For the purposes of the article, the term seems concise enough. As Torkmusic says in the prior AfD, Tomboy) has been around since 1592, so there should not be a problem with this becoming indiscriminate. If there are varying definitions could be a subject for discussion in the article. To stand upon Le Grand Roi's shoulders, "Notable topic, discriminate list, covered in academic journals and books. " In short, there article is more encyclopediac than the last time. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  03:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't doubt that this is more encyclopaedic than during the previous AfD: the AfD reasoning was completely flawed. However the issue of subjectivity has not been addressed since being raised in the first AfD, and the article is much improved. If I thought my concerns could be addressed by improving the article further, I'd tag the article, not AfD it.  We are not arguing how long the term has been in use.  The term has changed in meaning so much across time and cultures, that we will never be able to nail down an objective criteria.
 * Take for example this paper, which actually examines how definitions and perception of tomboyism changed through three generations. It specifically bases it's definition of tomboyism on the opinions, and shows how the criteria are different for various segments of the community: What I consider to define tomboyism has little in common with what my grandmother considers to define tomboyism, yet we'd probably use the same words to define it (e.g. boylike behaviours).
 * Likewise, people with more tomboyish behaviours are less likely to consider themselves (and others) as tomboys. No-one is claiming that tomboyism is anything but a continuum, so our definitions of what counts is also a continuum.
 * For the same reason, we can't have a List of conservative politicians, because no-one will ever be able to agree on the criteria. There have been plenty of books written about politicians with conservative leanings, but to use them as sources in a list would be misrepresenting them.
 * I don't see how the my subjectivity concerns can possibly be resolved. -- Mark Chovain 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger of this material into another article. This is not deletion.  Also the supposed problem seems hypothetical and no evidence is provided.  Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hypothetical? Are you serious?  WP:LIST says that lists should not be subjective.  This list is subjective.  I've even provided a reference to a paper that says just that.  A search on Google Scholar reveals many more. -- Mark Chovain 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:LIST does not say what is attributed to it. The hand-waving reference to this style guideline lacks substance and evidence.  There's no case to answer and so the nomination should be speedily dismissed to save us further trouble. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yes, it is very well referenced. Has anyone noticed there are more references than actual entries on the list? I would have to assume there are far more books with tomboy characters than the count-on-fingers listing that is currently (as of 31 May) presented -- especially in the so-called young adult literature. Just my two cent deposit. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the first AfD I was concerned about the lack of sources to justify identifying a long list of characters as tomboys. That problem has since been resolved, given that all the entries that remain are sourced. Any problems with the content can now be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the last AfD. Problems with sourcing can be fixed by editing.  Fundamental problems with the list cannot be.  Any chance of commenting on just how you make the criteria for this list objective? -- Mark Chovain 06:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. The criterion for being included on the list should be that a reliable source has described the character as a "tomboy". But it should be up to each such reliable source to decide its own criteria for classifying the character as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what is the encyclopaedic value of a list for which the inclusion criteria are effectively different for each entry? The list would really be List of fictional characters that have been described as tomboys.  The point of lists is that we can look at entries on them, and say, "Yes, this is an X".  We can work towards getting a relatively comprehensive list of Xs.  If we're just cataloguing cases where characters have been described as X (especially when that's just the non-expert opinion of a single author or writer), we can never be confident of either of those things. -- Mark Chovain 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is simply redundant. All lists are effectively "List of X that have been described as Y."  Because of the way Wikipedia works, we don't care about whether X is really Y or not; all we care about is that X has been described as Y in reliable sources.  Anything more than that would force us to take original research into account, and that introduces a lot of problems.  All in all, this list follows everything we have to govern lists, verifiability, and reliable sources.  If there are reliable sources that describe a given X as a Y, then there's really no reason not to include that.  Celarnor Talk to me  01:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. First, it's a repetitive nomination.  Lists, being navigation and illustrative help pages, generally do not need sources if they link to articles that contain sourced statements that support the reason for inclusion on the lists.  Failure to understand this is probably the reason why the article is "incomplete" in its present state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Reliable scholarly sources can label archetypes.  Characters so labeled belong in this list.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the list in question is well referenced and, I think, valuable. Nevertheless, I think the nom raises an interesting point, although I'm not sure that this is the place to apply it. I certainly agree with Celarnor and others above that the key issue should be whether or not reliable sources say X is Y, and based on the references cited in the article, there are very reliable sources supporting each element in the list. But even if that isn't accepted, the nom's argument, that tomboyish behaviour is too subjective to be nailed down, isn't supported by the reference provided. The Morgan paper (which was great reading - I'm glad it was raised) concludes "Very little variation was seen across the generations on the percent of women who self report as tomboys or the types of activities viewed as tomboyish." (Morgan, 1998, pp 797-798). Given that, even if there is still a case to make that the definition is subjective and fluid, the challenge would be to argue that it is sufficiently subjective and fluid (as, possibly, in the case of "conservative politician") to deny the validity of the sources being applied. And given the prevalence of the notion, I don't see that challenge being met. - Bilby (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a content issue, and just means that there's room for expansion. This article, like all others, is in a constant state of flux, and always has room for improvement.  Celarnor Talk to me  18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep & Merge into Tomboy this article would be better as a section of the article Tomboy. --Magnetawan (talk) 12:46, 1 June 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.