Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Messiahs in fiction (relist)


 * 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. Proto :: ►  15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Messiahs in fiction

 * — (View AfD)

Page nominated previously, but critical corrections have not been made. Page is now 60K of original research, violating WP:NOR, without a single citation. Much of the content appears to be fancruft and notable messiahs-in-fiction are better served by having it in the individual articles, rather than this long list. JRP 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Move to BJAODN. Messiahspeculationcruft / OR list. An appropriate list could be created (better to knock the current version down completely and restart though) if a very particular definition of "messiah" was used that could prevent the mishmash of vague OR speculations here. As it is, we have no Life of Brian - a highly notable and famous comedy about someone whose literal Messiah status-or-not is the whole point of the plot - on the list but  we do have a whole bunch of vague musings about video game and anime plots which fit in the excessively broad "single protagonist who is expected to save the world and has special powers - kind of like Jesus!" category (this sounds like the majority of video games out there...) rather than messiahs as such.   Bwithh 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of these entries appear to have been made by people who have no idea what messiah means at all e.g. (and don't get me started on the ridiculous entries like the ones comparing the Samurai Jack and Lego BIONICLE characters to Jesus Christ? And I'm not even religious). I would recommend this article for BJAODN. Bwithh 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, come on, I can totally see the Samurai Jack-Jesus thing! TAnthony 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This "list" does seem redundant, as all Messiah characters would theoretically already be categorized by Category:Fictional messiahs and could therefore be found easily. But I'd vote yes to a strictly-defined LIST, without any descriptions (thereby discouraging all the blather) TAnthony 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. I get the general impression from recent AfDs that articles of the form "(motif/device/archtype/whatever) in fiction" are considered unencylopedic. Or that they are required to be part of a heirarchy under the works that use them rather than being top-level articles of their own that use individual works as examples.  Is there really is consensus on that, or are recent deleted articles along these lines special cases somehow?
 * This article in specific is in bad shape. It is a big list of examples with little explanation of how they are all tied together.  It is in need of sourcing.  But these are usually not sufficent for deletion on their own.  Cleaned up, this seems like the sort of article that should exist on Wikipedia, unless there's some reason to believe that no reliable source can be found to back it up.  That seems unlikely--don't most universities have entire departments dedicated to the art of fiction? BCoates 09:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and tag for cleanup. There's a lot of nonsense and OR here, but the page is interesting and potentially useful. AndyJones 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for cleanup per above. The topic is good, and the examples are good. The article just needs some massaging and de-POVing. 23skidoo 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. -- Bpmullins | Talk 20:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, tag for cleanup, tag as OR if you must. If somebody was too lazy to add proper references, it's not a reason for deletion. Laziness of the original editor is not an excuse to destroy informative, interesting article. Or is it. Valters 20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, definition of messiah is blatant original theorising and completely contradicted by the messiah article, which states categorically that a messiah is one who is annointed by God. Looking at the list, only Aslan comes close to this. --Nydas (Talk) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - the messiah article does actually say it's used to describe a 'saviour or liberator' - although this raises the question of why the article isn't named Saviours in fiction. Nonetheless, this article is essentially a collection of personal musings more suitable for blogs, forums or personal websites.--Nydas (Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as unmanageable OR listcruft. The problem is that there is no solid qualification for being Messiahistic. As a result basically every main character in videogames and shows who saves the world from evil can (and from the looks of things, has) be added to that list. I was about to say create a Category:Fictional messiahs if a standard can be set for what qualifies as a Messiah, not just "they saved the world" when I found out one already exists. That makes this page redundant. Koweja 21:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Dstanfor 21:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep if it's good enough for a category it's good enough for a list. Jcuk 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Overabundance of people that have died and resurrected and a lack of actual messiahs make this article craptastic at it stands. Danny Lilithborne 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, crufty and speculative. I also agree with Nydas that messiah definition in this article is too far from classical. Max S em 06:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've been trying, but outside of individual fan readings of the films, games, etc. themselves there are very very few characters that have external, reputable, sources that make this comparison. Superman is one, but that's the only one on this list that I can find. I think many of these could be categorized as Category:Fictional characters who have returned from the dead and Category:Fictional characters who have saved the world, neither of which are speculative (nor encyclopedic, but that can be decided in a CFD down the way). Being a "chosen one" is such a common fictional conceit that it's hardly worth making a list of. JRP 10:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. Probably an encyclopedic topic, but this is idiosyncratic DIY exegesis and thus textbook original research. An article like this needs secondary sources, and this doesn't have any. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This article is so crufty, it's insalvageable. Since so many others have provide reasons to delete for me, I'm going to debunk some of the arguments of the "keep" votes:
 * There may be reliable sources.
 * Actually, aside from blogger rants, there are no reliable sources about this topic, emphasis on reliable.
 * "There's a lot of nonsense and OR here, but..."
 * These are actually reasons to delete (see CSD:A1 and NOR)
 * "...the page is interesting and potentially useful"
 * Useful for what? An argument with your friend about why Sailor Moon is stronger than Buffy the Vampire Slayer? Also, "interesting" is not a reason for having an article.
 * "topic is good... examples are good"
 * How so? Potentially every single being in fiction could be included in this list since saving the world seems to qualify someone as being a messiah. That would make this the longest page on Wikipedia with rampant OR and POV.
 * "if it's good enough for a category it's good enough for a list"
 * Apparently not. See Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 7. Besides, that argument makes no sense. If it has a category, then a list would be redundant anyway.
 * Well, I think that's it. Oh yeah, last thing, the article is so POV it makes my eyes bleed. Just thought you'd like to know. Axem Titanium 21:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * strong Keep
 * 1) First of all, it is a compilation and not OR, being obviously based on the descriptions of the books given in WP, with links provided. Links are documentation. The events in the book are documentation. It would be possile to do a much more scholarly version, but I don't think it would add much here. The citations to such discussions should be at the original articles, not here.
 * 2) It brings useful material together, and is therefore notable
 * 3) I cannot perceive any POV whatsoever--the heros are diverse, and the readers are obviously expected to form their own opinions from the material presented, which is just what an encyclopedia should do. Of the works I know, I consider some of the instances very clear, some more remotes, and Iannticipate a good deal of interest in adding others, as it is one of the great themes in story-telling.DGG 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out to you that interpreting characters as messiahs "based on [their] descriptions [in] the books" is the very definition of original research. I don't see how being a "compilation" has anything to do with the fact that it's original research. Also, being useful does not equal being notable. My shoes are useful. They keep my feet dry in the rain, but I'm not going to write a Wikipedia article about them. Finally, are my eyes bleeding? Yes, they are. Therefore, the article must be POV. In all seriousness, if you can't see the inherent POV of calling someone a messiah when you're not God (who seems to be the only person who can anoint messiahs), then I suggest you reread WP:NPOV. On second look, no one seems to have mentioned that this article is unverifiable by reliable sources so I'd just like to throw that into the mix. Axem Titanium 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep — I see no reason to delete this content.. it needs sources yes.. does deletion help? no. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, deletion helps. It removes original research from Wikipedia, a Very Good Thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 12 December 2006 (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.