Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wealthy 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. Nja 247 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

List of wealthy fictional characters

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

Apparently arbitrary list - intersection of fictional and wealthy - with no objective criteria for entry onto the list. The Forbes list (see external links sections) is interesting, but this list gives no such details and is quite frankly different. Otherwise unreferenced (I believe). Prodded twice before. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; he's said everything I could say. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--wow, this is some listcruft. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the nom said, this is a nonencyclopedic intersection of topics; I believe it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Deor (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In addition to the other valid reasons given above, this list is intrinsically original research. Bongo  matic  00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * very weak Keep though it will need sourcing for the extent of wealth of each individual, or the basis for which he or she is being considered wealthy. Some of this is probably available from secondary sources.     Very weak keep, not keep, because the present article may not be a really good starting point. The proper consideration is if the wealth is characteristic of the character, as for Jay Gatsby--who is not mentioned in the present article. There would be several hundred or thousand people in literature whose fictional role is quite specifically ln large part that they are rich. There are probably at least 20 or so major figures in Trollope alone. The more difficult question is what do wdo with those who are central characters and also rich, but it is only a part of the characterization, as for Emma Woodhouse, "young, handsome, and rich" according to the author -- also not mentioned. Now, neither of the people I referred to do even have articles, which is truly astounding, considering the amount of criticism that has been written, and that there are films as well as novels. Our priorities on fictional characters are peculiar, even for the internet; it's not primarily lack of interest, but the monopolization of potentially interested people in afd and multi-year policy discussions.  (An admittedly inadequate start for  Emma Wodehouse was deleted one minute literally after creation as recently as Oct 2008, as "no context," by an editor and an admin  who apparently did not recognize the name;  nobody seems to have much as tried for Jay Gatsby.)DGG (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These comments are well-taken, but don't seem to me to argue (even very weakly) for "keep". Bongo  matic  01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Yikes. I think an article on wealthy fictional characters might be possible, but this list seems problematic. Maybe y'all have just ground me down and I've become too pessimistic. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:IINFO. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Pure listcruft, fails WP:LIST ukexpat (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (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.