Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female supervillains (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this list for deletion as this is an unverifiable original research. Also, the term "supervillain" itself cannot be well-defined, which further supports the fact that it cannot be verified. The problem is here since 2007 (see the previous AfDs), therefore it is highly unlikely that this article will be fixed. Hence this article satisfies WP:DEL#REASONs #6,7. It also fails all five criteria of WP:GNG, especially "significance in coverage". Lastly, Wikipedia is not a publisher of fan inventions or directory. Therefore, it should be deleted. Forbidden User (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list article helps with navigation, showing people where to find similar articles they may be interested in. Everyone on the list is female and has a super power and is a villain, so its not original research. They are called this in their own articles and even featured in Category:Female supervillains already. The list would be more useful with additional information added for each entry, listing their super power, and when they debuted, and in what comic book. Dream Focus 19:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make the group notable? Besides, every claim on "super power" and "villainity" needs to be sourced on the list, and I see none.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. As long as that information is in the article being linked to, its fine. Dream Focus 13:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it cites no RS to prove its notability, our deltion policy says we delete it — the MoS guideline cannot defend it.Forbidden User (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletion policy says we delete it if it is impossible to cite a RS to prove its notability. The lack of sources actually cited in the article is not a cause for deletion of the entire article. JulesH (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to Category:Female supervillains per WP:CLN, and as navigational list per WP:LISTPURP. As Dream Focus explains above, the claim that it's unverifiable whether a character is 1) female and a 2) supervillan is simply nonsense, as the original sources almost always use the label of "superhero" or "supervillain". Citing to the previous AFDs is no help to the nominator, as both closed as "keep" and did not raise the same arguments so they are hardly evidence of an unresolved "problem" existing "since 2007". postdlf (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to say that the problem is not here in 2007, as the noms both raise the same problems I raise. Your "always" claim is unsupported as well. Anyway, WP:N is the relevant guideline here. Throwing others are not really useful.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Article provides no information beyond the information a category provides. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still cannot support the claim that it has a point.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you consider it pointless or not is not relevant. Dream Focus 13:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no point, then it is meningless not to delete it. We're not stupid, it is common sense not to have pointless stuff.Forbidden User (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is a complementary navigational index. Plus it has the potential to be annotated and organized in different ways, which the category cannot. But I shouldn't have to tell you that if you've already read through WP:CLN, particularly WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While comic relief is of course valued on WP, and makes it into quite a few essays, including the Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose that NOTSTUPID references, I have always felt that the comic essays were almost universally the worst essays, that their value as humor was the grease that slid them in, where their sheer value as policy was lacking. I am frankly horrified to see that an ad nauseum/WP:BLUDGEONing away at the reader with five or so reiterations of the phrase "bad idea" has actually made it onto the WP:NOT page, which is actually a Policy rather than an essay. More to the point of this discussion, NOTSTUPID is a derivative of Ignore All Rules. Anyone can fly IAR up the flagpole at any time; what is important is to say WHY you think that this particular usage of a rule is wrong in this case.

I should add, that the point is not whether you, one editor alone consider it pointless or not. The point is that the policy discussion, long ago, involving dozens of editors, and the tacit acceptance of the outcome of the discussion by thousands more editors is relevant. WP:CONSENSUS has determined that cats and lists are not redundant to each other. The argument that it is pointless is not irrelevant to a new discussion about the relationship between cats and lists, but good luck finding anyone who wants to debate that, basically. Already decided. Anarchangel (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why do you think that I think WP:NOTDUP does not apply? By the way, complaining about comic essays is not the point here......Forbidden User (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable subject. Not redundant to a category, as the article includes information on publisher that would otherwise not be included in navigation. Could also be extended to include additional information (e.g. year of first appearance would be a useful addition IMO). JulesH (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As WP:BEFORE doesn't seem to have been done and limited improvements to improve this over a category hasn't happened yet. I'll do some work, but as a matter of reference, most of these villains already contain numerous links to their criteria and portrayal in media. I'll keep to the easier lists which are ever present to start with. WP:NOTDUP clearly applies and we should aim for a little more than a mere list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several book sources exist to cover this from a non-primary aspect:

The Superhero Book: The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Comic-Book Icons and Hollywood Heroes
The Science of Supervillains By Lois H. Gresh, Robert Weinberg
Supervillains and Philosophy: Sometimes, Evil is its Own Reward by Ben Dyer
Superheroes V Supervillains: The Ultimate Guide to the Greatest Superheroes of All Time by Sarah Oliver
The Physics of Superheroes: Spectacular Second Edition By James Kakalios
A Brief History of Marvel Comics, the Marvel Universe, Its Superheroes and Supervillains by Holly Simon
Marvel Comics in the 1970s: An Issue-by-Issue Field Guide to a Pop Culture Phenomenon by Pierre Comtois

For something like a mere "do you define X as Y" this covers it well on all fronts. It is complete over kill let alone the media and other sites which frequently do their own "top 10" of types. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's quite a lot of books. I saw three really talking about supervillains. However, I'm talking about clarity in definition besides coverage. If the definition is mingled and blur, how is this list supposed to be built? However, I do have an idea of splitting this long list into several ones. E.g. One about Marvel supervillains, one about Disney supervillains, ... Perhaps this is an alternative. Forbidden User (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article links to supervillainess, so the definition is easy to find. Dream Focus 00:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant definition in the books. However, as I gladly see editors willing to work on it, I shall withdraw my nomination.Forbidden User (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2014 (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.