Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanisers 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.

The result was   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Womanisers in fiction

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

A disputed PROD. Since there is no definition of "womaniser" and absolutely no references provided, this is essentially original research by synthesis. It can never be clear whether an entry belongs on this list without a definitive citation; none have been provided and none seem available. Accounting4Taste: talk 17:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is a month old and the creator did not seemed inclined to provide any sources when they deproded. Without sources the article is an obvious original research and POV violation and with sources the subjective nature of the subject and unmanageable scope of the content inhibits it from ever being encyclopedic. TomPointTwo (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep I searched within wikipedia to see if this material was covered elsewhere- it doesnt appear to be. Womaniser, womanizing etc just link to Promiscuity- if you check that its focus is very different to the intended focus of this article.

My point is, this is a notable subject not adequately covered elsewhere (from what i can tell- anyone searching for this sort of topic would have similiar issues to myself). Yes there are massive problems with the article as it is- but they could easily be fixed, new content and citations added etc etc. The article needs to have more analysis at the start instead of just being a list. "The womaniser" is a specific, recurring literary and filmic archetype- focusing on explaining that, with a list giving examples, i think would be very worthwile and not at all "unmanageable" as suggested above. If the original creator is no longer active- tag up the page for improvement and maintenance and see if someone else can take over. Brunk500 (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From Wikipedia:DEL - "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. " --Brunk500 (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Minor self correction- after some thinking i did manage to find a wiki article that kind of already relates to the womanizer archetype - Rake (character). While connected, a rake is usually associated with activities (gambling, drinking, inherited fortune) that are not always associated to womanizer characters. In other words, all rakes are womanizers, but not all womanizers are rakes. --Brunk500 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless some sourcing is added (so far, declined). This is one person's list of all the examples that come to mind when they think of the word "womaniser"  (the author's definition seems to be a man who goes from one woman to the next).  People on the list are Don Juan (his name has become a byword), Dorian Gray's buddy Lord Henry Wotton (exhibits womanising tendencies), Count Dracula, James Bond ("widely regarded to be the archetypal womaniser") and some of his womanising enemies, the psycho in American Psycho, Bruce (the Batman) Wayne, Tony (Iron Man) Stark, Charles Foster "Citizen Kane" Kane, and any other examples that readers want to add.  The days of "this is a stub" (or as a womaniser might say "...a really big stub, baby!") are over. Mandsford (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then has a golden age come to an end. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more like the age of "nobody takes Wikipedia seriously" has come to an end. Back in its salad days, Wikipedia wasn't the first place that people would look for information, so sourcing was considered optional.  Nothing wrong with writing an article about fictional womanisers, but a visit to Google books wouldn't hurt.  Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody takes Wikipedia seriously today. Hardly surprising really since it's more a glorified online game than an encyclopedia. --Nemesis the Fourth (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the way you feel perhaps you should find another place to pass your free time.TomPointTwo (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per Mandsford. Where the entire article is nothing but OR, both in terms of the incoherent and equivocating organizing concept and the inclusion and analysis of individual entries, you can't clean it up except by completely rewriting and retitling it.  In other words, starting from scratch.  The creator's comments above also do not inspire confidence in this article.  postdlf (talk) 22:32, 17 December 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.