Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male superheroes (2nd 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of male superheroes

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

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

This list would be virtually impossible to define or complete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Delete- I have tried for a couple months to sandbox this into something less unwieldy but there is just no dice. Most of the entries can be found under other lists such as

• Keep - Yes, it has been vandalized (with only sporadic clean ups). That is not a reason to delete (visit
  talk) 04:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • please don't distort my reasoning. I did not say vandalism is a reason to delete. Placing it at the opening of your statement makes it seem thus. I simply made the statement of what the list has actually provided (what it's worth is to an encyclopedia) because I tend to look further down the road than a day, week or month. I am saying basically because of redundancy that the article is not needed. Most of these can be found under already existing lists such as I mentioned. Whether they are from a comic universe or video games, etc etc, these entries simply are not needed. For the most part as far as I can find they are already listed. I am sure you yourself (per your recent work on the page finding blue links) have found most of these already listed. If they have not be added to the corresponding list i.e. Marvel superheroes, D.C., etc etc then it would simply be a matter of adding them to that existing list and not creating an overly large redundant list in which to find them all. "Just because we can does not mean we must". We are an encyclopedia not a redundant link site. And at no point was it mentioned by me that this would be a complete list. I agree with you on that. It would be like creating a so called complete census list of names in the state of bavaria- unless no one was ever born there again after a certain date it would be a complete waste of time. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:SALAT - "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." This list is mind-boggling, and could theoretically contain all male superheros from all fictional mediums from all over the world and from any time period. Yikes. There are existing lists which will contain these characters in a more presentable form, and many others which could be made to cross the gaps, this is just too broad. Someoneanother 17:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - "all male superheros from all fictional mediums from all over the world and from any time period." Sure, like the List of people from Florida is going to contain the names of the hundreds of millions of people from Florida? No, all notable male superheros. Nothing more. -
    talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Even when applied only to notable characters, or notable works with relevant characters, the list's scope is too broad by a mile. When a list's population can consist of everything from
      90s Indian TV series it needs to be something pretty specific to keep the population a reasonable size. That isn't the case here. The next thing to do is split the list. Since it's inclined towards comic books, a lot of the content is already listed on existing lists which perform the same job. Trying to hammer out more specific lists from this would take longer than starting afresh with more specific lists. That leaves deletion. Someoneanother 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These unlimited lists are nothing but trouble. They inherently lead to notability problems and soon become dumping grounds of unmanageable data. --Djohns21 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not an unlimited list any more than List of people from Florida is. Both lists are limited beyond the huge scope of their titles to notable examples. -
    talk) 01:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • re And yet this still does not address the redundancy issue. Lists for these characters exist. We do not make List A of what is in List B which can be found in List C. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, some
        talk) 03:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • Comment
      Other stuff exists is not an argumentEven with only bluelink examples, the list is currently over 500 entries long. There is a point where there is so much data on a page, that it morphs from information to noise. This is noise.--Djohns21 (talk) 04:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Comment - It's long so delete it? The bluelinks are in response to the still unsupported claim that we don't make lists that include material from other lists. Obviously, we do. Where is the guideline that says we don't? Where are the lists that this list includes/is included in? Yes, it's long. Yes, it's been vandalized ("unmanageable" - but not really). Yes, there are other lists that include some of this list and this list includes some of other lists. That's common. This list, however, is not a mere compilation of data from other lists nor is it merely a subcategory of another list. It is unique. My argument is not "What about article X?" My argument is that your "We don't do that" is plainly wrong: we do do that and nothing says we shouldn't. -
        talk) 05:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Comment Enough of the sarcasm please. It is unproductive to this discussion and only serves to possibly create a
          battleground
          atmosphere. Even though this comment you put under Djohns21 is actually responding to a post I made above that (I said we don't make un ending lists.) I will respond here to the earlier statement and to what is directly above this comment now. Perhaps I could have said "do not need such a list" as opposed to "do not make" such a list. Is that more clear then? Can you verify your claim that this is useful to Wikipedia? Does this list in anyway benefit the project and would the project be worse for losing it?. Also refer to my statement that just because we can does not mean we must. Take it as must/need/should however you will. It would be far more productive to merge entries from this list into the already existing lists that I mention before. If you need a complete listing of all those available lists you can do the work yourself. All I had to do was provide examples which I did.
        • -No one said there was not a female equivalent or that it would not be possible that someone created one. At no time was it mentioned that female superheroes was not notable. I would venture that it is possible that such a list would be redundant also as it still pertains to Djohns21's and Someone's earlier statements about the useless size. Between comic books, graphic novels, cartoons, anime, video games, etc etc... a list of this type as well as the male equivalent we are discussing here is simply too broad. That however would be for an AFD on the superheroines list. I find it hard to believe that those entries in others lists, including the articles I presume they link to, do not mention the character as male or female or entity, etc etc... Breaking it down into only comic book or cartoon, etc etc would be pointless as this can be much more easily accomplished by adding to the existing lists of comic characters, cartoons and what have you. If there is indeed a list missing (i.e. darkhorse characters or what have you) then we can create that article.
        • -The lists you posted have little to no relevance to this AFD. They are dealing with different issues. We are not specifying here about superheroes or villians without superpowers, nor teams and groups, nor debuts. That last in particular has no bearing and is not dealing with same type of issue. This AFD is about an article with the extremely large umbrella specifier of "male". Perhaps someone will bring up AFDs on those articles at some point. I am not a
          crystal ball
          and can't say.
        • -As far as your repeated mentions of FL it has no bearing. We aren't talking about notable living/deceased people which lists of that type would entail. Most people from or living in FL do not have mentions in published written work or television or etc etc. No one has mentioned that a list of people from FL would included "everyone" ever born as you keep trying to infer would pertain to this AFD. Look at
          WP:ENN
        • -"where are these lists?" Well if you missed my very first post might I suggest you go back and please read it. I said the entries in this list exist in those articles. Perhaps not all but just from quick browsing many and perhaps over half.
        • -Again please stop with the
          SALAT Someone pointed out earlier is quite nice), what Wikipedia is not and what constitutes being a positive contribution to this project as opposed as what doesn't add value to the project. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]

I have been using the List of Male Superheroes for the last few weeks in researching frequency of certain apparel styles in superhero depictions, and have found it more useful than any other list I've run into on the web. I say: KEEP. Paulewagner (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This user has only edited this page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true, Koavf. In my years of reading Wikipedia I have never had a prior personal reason to comment. The above is my first-ever. Is there an initiation ritual? :) Paulewagner (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment and welcome Hi Paulewagner and welcome to the AFD and wiki in general. While I cannot speak for another editor, I believe that Koavf was simply referring to a long standing practice on Wikipedia involving AFD debates. In this case the

WP:MEAT rule would be the one to look at. In particular the sections which says "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion. Their comments may be tagged with a note pointing out that they have made few or no other edits outside of the discussion.". I do not believe in anyway that Koavf was actually accusing you of being anyone's puppet. This is just simple and common procedure on Wiki AFD pages. Again please don't take it in a negative fashion. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment so can we go ahead and close this? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AfDs typically run for about a week. There's no deadline here. -

talk) 04:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah no worries my bad. My head wasn't paying attention to the calendar this week. Naturally we run for a week or more. For some reason I was thinking this was like 2 weeks ago lol. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are multiple encyclopedias covering this topic including The encyclopedia of superheroes, The encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television, The superhero book: the ultimate encyclopedia of comic-book icons and Hollywood heroes. With sources like this, it will be easy to produce and maintain a list. Merging with the superheroine list would be sensible as some superheroes are sexless or change their sex (e.g.
  Robin and Vision) but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It was never in question whether or not there would be sources. And merging the female list would take away the one thing making this list in any way possible- the male modifier that gives it some semblance of specialization. However the problem with size would only be increased. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Size is not a problem. Do you realise that we have lists on Wikipedia with hundreds of thousands of entries, e.g. List of minor planets? Superheroes are comparatively few in number when considered as a specific genre per this definition. Warden (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment First- yes "size" in the terms of actual bytes and such is not a problem. However in terms of usefulness it counts and again see earlier statements that just because we can do something is not an argument that we should. Second- that is one definition and as earlier brought up the definition in itself can be grounds for debate. Third using a specific genre for the list then enters into what I have already mentioned on multiple posts that we already have lists for specific genres (nintendo, games, comics, etc etc). To pick any particular genre for this article would be to basically re create an already existing list with the small (sub)modifier of including only male characters. tymv Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The
  split it into a list of lists using ordinary editing. These issues do not constitute a case for deletion. Warden (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

re Actually I'm sorry to say but PW's "rebuttal" as you call it does nothing. "I use it therefore in my own personality I rebut argument involving policy and consensus".  ?? really? Nor does the usage statistic that you brought up. How many of those hits were from the same 6-10 users that have gone to the page just to try and touch it up? How many came to it by way of this AFD? Also, and I believe this is most telling for someone like me who "watches" this page, how many of those hits are simply from the plethora of vandals that come here to put their friends name on the list or otherwise be disruptive this particular project? Just by what I myself have seen through the watchlist and the edit history I would say the vandals are the most widely represented on the usage list, but then again that's just MHO from what I have seen. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily possible to define: it contains those for which there are Wikipedia articles. That's the very opposite of indiscriminate. A list containing all superheroes in all fiction regardless of notability would be indiscriminate . This is indeed no more infinite than the number of notable superheroes, and if we can make articles on them individually, we can certainly find room for them on a list, to bring them together in context--context which is impossible in a category. It's time we established a clarification of the guidelines on lists, that a list limited to those examples of the type that are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, is always appropriate, if the type is definable. Always. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um please see comment about

straw argument earlier- notability was never an issue brought up by those voting for delete. Again read earlier statements about the existing lists. If we weed this down into comics, or cartoon or graphic novels, etc etc then we might as well simply add the entries on this page to those lists. Why make another list? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete indiscriminate and impossible to make this of good quality. What's next: List of male athletes? Literally thousands of entries could fit here. Better to focus on more discriminate categories with a more manageable number of entries. Dzlife (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Not at all indiscriminate: Notable superheroes (those with articles) is as discriminate as notable people from Florida. "Impossible to make of good quality"? I can't tell what your specific concern is here. Literally thousands of entries? Oh no! We have hundreds of such lists, including
    talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

comment Neither is the argument that because we can do something than we should. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument to delete has nothing to do with whether or not can = should. The arguments Dzlife presented are indiscriminate (it's not), "impossible to make this of good quality" (what?) and it will be big (so what?). -

talk) 04:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually when the argument to keep being used is that size doesn't matter because we can, then indeed that can be given a counter argument from the delete side. That's just how it works. The arguments brought up by myself and others is that "male" is too broad. Indiscriminate certainly- we aren't saying male comic book superheroes, male video game superheroes, or etc etc. This list is saying male superheroes in its entirety. Far too many mediums and possibilities to be considered "discriminate". tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too broad in scope for an encyclopedic article to emerge, per
  nonencyclopedic cross-categorization, and our NOTDIR policy states that just having a cross category isn't considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. Overly-broad lists such as this need to be deleted, not encouraged. DGG's suggestion about the criteria for lists above is not supported by policy or consensus. ThemFromSpace 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I agree that the list is too broad in scope to be useful; most superheroes are male and there are very many of them in fiction. Such lists are maintainable in theory but rarely maintained, let alone useful, in practice.  Sandstein  18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Way too broad of a list.
  talk) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - interesting article, something that people will look up for on wikipedia. Tony (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too broad in scope to be considered
  WP:SALAT states that "lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections". Not the same as a list of female superheroes, which is more specific and exceptional. This list has piled on all kinds of male characters indiscriminately. What does Seraph from the Matrix have in common with Zorro, Luigi, and a Hindu god? Barely anything. A more discriminate list topic might have more hope of drawing together a useful and verifiable category. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2011 (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.