Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supervillain chronology


 * 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 No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 15:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Supervillain chronology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Crufty and ultimately impossible list to maintain. already exists- I propose moving all of the villains on this list into the category, and then Deleting the article. -- Wikipedical 03:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: See related AfD, Articles for deletion/Superhero debuts. --  Wikipedical 20:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think the category is an equal substitute in this case.  This list gives not just names (like the category), but date of creation, creator, and the title of the relevant fictional work.  In addition, it separates by decade and medium of publication (comic, newspaper, etc.).  Also, it has sources.  A category is far more inferior in this case than the list. -- Black Falcon 03:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support renaming to List of supervillains or List of supervillains (chronological). -- Black Falcon 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Original research and absolutely unmaintainable. Some of these names could possibly go into a category, but I'm assuming that the vast, vast majority of the 'supervillains' listed here are non-notable.  --The Way 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this original research? Please explain.  Please note the two sources below: The Golden Age of DC Comics: 365 Days and History of Comic Books. -- Black Falcon 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is definitely original research, and is too crufty for my tastes. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  08:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is this original research? Please explain.  Please note the two sources below: The Golden Age of DC Comics: 365 Days and History of Comic Books. -- Black Falcon 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. As an inclusionist and a comic nerd, it's painful for me to argue for any comic-related deletion, but this probably should go because the aforementioned cruftiness and impossibility to maintain properly.  Ford MF 09:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * keep it is a very informative list--E tac 10:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There has to be a limit to what Wikipedia can take, lists of non-notable comic book villains are something Wikipedia can't take. Jobjörn  (Talk ° contribs) 14:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unmaintainable list with no assertion of significance of why a chronology is needed. The individual articles on these characters give their dates of creation and the main article on Super-villain gives history of the evolution of the concept. -Markeer 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is more a directory or an inventory or something, but it's not a managable encyclopedia entry. Proper categorization could handle this. Agent 86 20:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list seems both useful and manageable; the question "who was the first villain to appear in [time period X]" is a reasonable one, and it is an unwarranted burden to ask the user to search all supervillain articles separately. RandomCritic 21:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Although I strongly supported keeping the Superhero debuts article because it's specific, objective, and maintainable, I must acknowledge that the supervillain chronology is none of those things. Whereas the superhero debuts article inherently indicates what is noteworthy (the characters' debuts), the catch-all chronology lacks indications of significance. Wryspy 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm amazed by those above drawing a distinction between this and Superhero debuts since this article is clearly equally valid (or not valid, depending on your PoV) as that article is. The nomination is flawed because lists are NEVER redundant with categories (see WP:CLS and WP:LIST). Besides, as User:Black Falcon rightly points out, this list gives more, and different, information to that which the category provides, and gives line entries to villains who aren't considered notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages: which (contrary to User:The Way's apparent opinion) is a valid and appropriate use of a list, not a reason to delete one, and is an advantage over a category. As for WP:OR, well, that can be a ground for deletion but where information is superficially accurate, and clearly verifiABLE, I consider that just a matter for a tag for WP:V, to let the article evolve. AndyJones 14:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep; Having never seen the article before, upon reading it, WP:ILIKEIT !! It's a nice article and has a pretty decent hope in hell of being a good or featured article. John Vandenberg 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It meets WP:LIST:
 * Information - lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists
 * Navigation - Lists can be used as a table of contents, or if the user is browsing without a specific research goal in mind
 * It's not open ended, there are a finite number of supervillains. We do need to change the name to List of Supervillain debuts.  A cat is not going to allow someone to find debuts by year, so it is no substitute. - Peregrine Fisher 08:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Peregrine Fisher. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LIST. Stickeylabel 09:21, 24 February 2007 (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.