Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional villains: Difference between revisions

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:17Z

List of fictional villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

If you want to make a list of every villain that ever appeared in fiction, you'd write novels upon novels. Unwieldy, unmanageable, forever incomplete. See WP:LIST. Crystallina 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- SkierRMH 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unmanagable list criteria, no readily apparent alternative criteria. hateless 07:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons given above. Noroton 08:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete you've got to be kidding. JuJube 09:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Split and disambig. List of fictional villians is a huge category; list of animated villians is also big. List of Disney villains already exists. Splitting article into List of Pixar villains, list of DreamWorks villains, and List of Warner Bros. villains seems to be the best solution. The other categories can go unless they prove valuable. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd be hard pressed to find a unifying characteristic amongst DreamWorks villains, Warner Bros. villains, etc., other than the film studio that released films of them. At least with Disney villains the argument can be made that they were mostly created around the same circumstances - animated feature length movie rated either G or PG, must be family-friendly while remaining unlikeable somehow, and a lot of the early ones were made by Disney himself or whoever. But in respectable film literature (i.e., stuff that isn't written by a random stoner with a Bachelor's), there does not exist categories like the ones mentioned above. Pixar hasn't released enough movies on their own for any list to be even remotely substantial (the list of Pixar villans would number about 14, assuming two villains in every feature length movie). DreamWorks is a "you film it, we release it" sort, and the list of DreamWorks villains would feature everyone from the Gladiator bad guy to the bad guy in Shrek - unless we reduced it to just the DreamWorks "animated" features, which would leave us with a list similar to Pixar. Ditto Warner Brothers - they release a lot of movies. Unless we're narrowing down the Warner Brothers criteria to Looney Tunes, it makes no sense to create a laundry list of villainous characters whose only common trait is that eventually, the script containing them was given to some dude who then shopped his movie around and had it picked up by Warner Brothers. In closing, List of Disney Villains is fanpage fluff, but of the sort that's probably borderline fine for an encyclopedia. List of animated villains may also be encyclopedic. List of Pixar/FOX/WB/DreamWorks/whatever Villains might as well be List of Villains whose names begin with B and were born west of the Ural mountains. --Action Jackson IV 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a perfect example of why categories exist on Wikipedia.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I swear I've seen this article go through AFD before. --SeizureDog 13:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have seen the one for List of fictional heroes. Crystallina 19:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - indiscriminate, unmaintainable, requires POV. Otto4711 13:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nom. Simply too broad a topic for a list article. 23skidoo 15:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - have faith, List of Random Stuff that Begins with the Letter R still seems to be a redlink. --Action Jackson IV 20:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now. . . Chevinki 21:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.