Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Antiheroes

Category:Antiheroes

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete.  While correct that lists and categories can co-exist, there is no mandate that they must co-exist.  It is clear from this discussion that the consensus is that in this case, the list is preferable over the category. Kbdank71 13:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * antiheroes


 * Nominator's rationale: This was speedy deleted recently as a recreation of a category previously deleted at CfD (see CfD1 and CfD2), but at DRV the argument was made that the previous CfD was too long ago to determine consensus. A full discussion would be helpful. Chick Bowen 17:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, not a stable or concrete characteristic, but rather a subjective evaluation of a very broad character type or fictional role. Lists remain preferred when it's a matter of documenting literary analysis, because it matters who is identifying the characters as such and why; such concepts regarding a character's role are often applied inconsistently, as List of fictional anti-heroes itself explains: "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an anti-hero, although the classification is somewhat subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero."  There accordingly remains a strong consensus to delete or listify categories that attempt to classify fictional characters by such broad types or roles they supposedly play within fiction (see, e.g., this recent CFD regarding the instability of what constitutes a "supporting character") rather than by more concrete, specific traits. Concepts such as these are reliably definable in the general, but application to specific examples is meaningless when isolated from explanation or sourcing, which makes categories inappropriate as a means of grouping such purported examples.  See also related CFDs regarding protagonists (and more protagonists), femme fatales, and antagonists.  See also "Fictional anti-heroes" CFD for yet another prior deletion discussion on this category.  Postdlf (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As with all attributes, especially those attributed to fictional characters, we cannot rely on the subjective opinion of editors to apply the characteristic as a category. We need to follow the bedrock Wikipedia principal of using reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim. While I have seen some goos research before the List of fictional anti-heroes provides nearly 200 reliable and verifiable sources for over 100 fictional characters. I had already begun the effort to review and refine these sources and to apply the category to the characters included therein. This is strong defining characteristic for the characters so defined, and there are hundreds of sources to support the claim. As with every single category, we need to ensure that the addition of the category is justified by sources, and with the research done here we have every opportunity to do so. Per WP:CLN, categories AND lists are intended to co-exist, providing an opportunity for all readers to navigate in the manner they find most useful. With the careful application of sources in these article, this is exactly the purpose that categories are intended to serve. I wish I had a category like this available when I had to write those "compare and contrast" papers back in school. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per the subjective nature of the concept of "anti-hero". Yes, the original CFD was quite a while ago but there is no indication that consensus has changed regarding the use of subjective terminology in category names. Quite the contrary, since this was originally deleted the consensus has solidified and strengthened, as demonstrated by the subsequent deletion of a raft of similar categories labeling characters as "villains", "antagonists", "protagonists" and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Delete Eusebeus (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – the list cited by Alansohn appears substantial and well-sourced, a fine basis for a substantial category subject to Alansohn's requirements of each article. (The cfds cited by Otto above such as the excellent User:ProveIt/index seem short on argument and long on 'delete per nom' and 'per previous'. I confess that I did not read them all and so might have missed the odd nuance.) Occuli (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason so many of them are "per nom" and "per previous" is that the consensus against them was so well established that it just became easier to nominate them with a statement like "per all the previous deletions of 'villain' categories" then type out the reasons over and over again. Some of the more substantive discussions are Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_18, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_13 and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_4, and by this time the consensus had gelled to the point where I started simplifying the nominations. Otto4711 (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Who follows the criteria for antihero is highly subjective. The list of antiheroes on Wikipedia is not undisputable fact. As it states, "Each of these examples has been identified by a critic as an anti-hero, although the classification is somewhat subjective. Some of the entries may be disputed by other sources and some may contradict all established definitions of anti-hero." So, hypothetically, if the list were to include SpongeBob Squarepants as antihero because a reputable source were to call him such, that would be fine. But saying "SpongeBob is the antihero protagonist..." in his own article and then add him to the antiheroes category because of said opinion, that would be wrong.--CyberGhostface (talk) 21:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Highly subjective and arbitrary in inclusion, too broad in scope, too vague in definition, etc. (See also several sections of WP:OC.) A well-sourced list, perhaps, but not a category. For further clarification, please take this essay into account with my comments. - jc37 05:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too subjective and broad to allow for a category with a satisfactory definition. Lists work best for this type of labeling that clearly requires solid references, because without them articles can't "self-evident[ly] and uncontroversial[ly]" be assigned to the category per WP:CLN. Judging by the results of similar CfDs that have occurred between the deletion of this one and this CfD, I don't think consensus has changed on categories of this type of broad label for fictional characters. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wonder if this position is 'antithetical to classical heroism'?  This is another one of those fictional character categories and I'm just not convinced that we can source this one as a category.  If the characteristic is significant then create a list with proper citations.  As CyberGhostface states, a mention in the article is not good enough proof.  Reading the main article leaves me with the impression that inclusion based on that article would be rather subjective and quite possibly POV. I think the points made by Alansohn and in WP:CLN argue very strongly against a category here.  If we need to be using reliable and verifiable sources then we need a list.  A category does not provide a way to verify claims of membership.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.