User talk:KF/Sanctuary III

Old Talk

How in the world can this entry ever be NPOV? This page needs to be deleted. --mav 10:28 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Delete it then -- it's in your power, not mine. However, I urge you to reconsider what you have just said. Including even fictional (!!!) people in that NPOV craze is really carrying things to extremes. Has it ever crossed your mind that creating winners as well as losers is exactly what fiction writers are doing all the time? And before you delete this talk page as well, I'll have to copy it and paste it over to the Village pump. --KF 10:47 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I Agree with Maveric. In Particular Stevens in "The Remains of the Day" would not be seen as a loser by the majority of people he encountered, but as perfectly fulfilling his role and social position. It is only when looked at with a modern egalitarian perspective that he appears as a loser. -- Chris Q 10:49 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that no one can judge whether a character is successful or not without getting POV - it is quite a subjective thing. --Lorenzarius 10:54 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

It's in my power but it is not at all something I am allowed to do without some consensus first. However I have to apologize for my tone because I misunderstood the purpose of this page. For some reason I thought "loser" meant the work of fiction and not just a fictional character. My bad - I guess I shouldn't be making such fast judgments at 3AM. But there still are POV issues - albeit not as severe as I first thought. --mav

It's not terribly encyclopedic, is it? It's YetAnotherList. If the concept of loss in literature is so important, let's have an article called "Loss in literature", and actually write content, supported by occasional examples, rather than lists. I vote for deletion. -- Tarquin 12:07 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Now that's nice. All of a sudden there are multiple reasons why this harmless page should be deleted, with people happy to be able to join in a chorus of disapproval. Next someone is going to claim that it's a copyright violation as well. I don't seem to get this right: What is so wonderfully encyclopaedic about People on stamps, Wine producing regions or the List of strikes? As I'm in a hurry now, I'm going to tell you at some later point what I was thinking when I started this page (you obviously really don't get it). --KF 15:01 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps the biggest objection that people have to this article is its title. Maybe List of anti-heroes in literature would be better? Many of the characters listed have a certain twisted heroic quality even though they are less than successful. Willy Loman would be a prime example. Heck we could even have Jay Gatsby listed. --mav

Couldn't people conceivably confuse 'anti-hero' with 'villian'? -- Goatasaur

No, but maybe with 'villain'. :) --KF 20:05 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think that is much of a problem once we define anti-hero. IIRC the concept is well-accepted in literature. --mav

I promised to give a longer explanation of my motives for starting a list entitled Losers in literature:

For a Wikipedian, a list of such people can be a source of inspiration to find more obscure topics to write about.

This sentence has been taken from the introductory paragraph of the People on stamps article. What they are doing at List of Christians right now is the exact opposite: trimming the list by deleting all names that are not linked to an article. However, "not linked" should be read as "not yet linked". By removing those names, for example Charles de Foucauld (my only addition) -- names various contributors have added in good faith -- you remove the source of inspiration mentioned above. In other words, you considerably slow down the potential growth of Wikipedia.

In an online encyclopaedia, lists -- whether exhaustive or not (which is an important distinction itself) -- serve at least these two purposes: (a) to give an overview of a complex subject-matter, and (b) to inspire both the casual browser and the hardened Wikipedian to start a new article.

(to be continued)

I for one am not arguing against lists in general, I have issues about the POV aspect of this list esp in relation to the title. See above for my suggestion. --mav 21:11 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

(continued)

I've read somewhere -- it may have been Charles Van Doren's A History of Knowledge, I don't remember -- that the weekend edition of a daily newpaper contains more information than all the knowledge that existed in ancient Greece taken together. (No wonder Aristotle's knowledge could be called "encyclopaedic".) Wisdom and knowledge have long been replaced by information. What is more, today students are taught to get organized and to look for specific information, in many cases as a substitute for knowledge and learning itself.

Game shows such as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? are basically about isolated pieces of more or less useless information. Encyclopaedias, on the other hand, should aim at emphasizing the interrelatedness of all human knowledge. Accordingly, cross references are of major importance. The wiki [[links]] are perfectly suited for this. We do have this enormous advantage over printed encyclopaedias and reference books.

Now for the literature pages in Wikipedia. Let's assume an unsuspecting newcomer who is interested in drama. They will not find a lot there. What they should be able to do is to delve deeper and deeper into this subject-matter, ideally until they have found what they were looking for and more, bookmarking all those pages on the way for future reference.

The traditional approach to acquiring knowledge about literature ("The 18th century novel", "Greek drama", "Literature of the antebellum South" etc. etc.) is more and more being complemented by what the author(s) of the Bloomsbury Good Reading Guide (Motto: "One good book leads to another") have called "skeins" and "menus" of suggested reading -- quite similar to the list at Losers in literature. For example, under "Country Houses" you can find, among others, E. M. Forster's Howards End and Eudora Welty's Delta Wedding (and I would add Truman Capote's Other Voices, Other Rooms). In no traditional book on literature will you find these novels connected to each other, yet they are as far as the setting is concerned. I understand that this approach is now also widely used at universities.

I have taken the liberty to create a few lists of that type. It took a lot of time and energy to compile them. The list of stations on the Piccadilly Line and the contestants of the Eurovision Song Contest 1963 are probably easier to compile. Still they are useful, even if there is currently no Wikipedia article on Emilio Pericoli or Vice Vukov or whoever.

I don't think you can find an awful lot on 20th century drama in Wikipedia. Authors such as Simon Gray, David Hare, Christopher Hampton, Mike Leigh, Winsome Pinnock, Steven Berkoff or Dusty Hughes do not even have stubs, and the entries on William Somerset Maugham and Arthur Miller are -- well, incomplete. Now there would be three ways of going about that apparent deficiency:

1. Start an article entitled 20th century drama. Not an easy job I guess.
2. Start articles such as Loss in literature (suggested by Tarquin, see above) and include examples of 20th century drama.

1. Start a list called Losers in literature and wait for others to join in and write articles on either the authors or the works of literature listed (or, ideally, on both). In my opinion, each of these courses of action is legitimate.

Finally, as far as mav's objection to the title is concerned, I don't see the problem. I tried to be very general, almost evasive, in my introduction so as not to include characters that are villains, cranks or recluses. I'm sorry, but I consider the statement that "no one can judge whether a character is successful or not without getting POV - it is quite a subjective thing" (Lorenzarius) as one of the most ridiculous I've read recently. And as far as Stevens, the butler (The Remains of the Day), is concerned, of course he is considered by the majority of people he is in touch with as a loser, more than that: All the people he waits on regard him as a loser by birth, a born loser because he was born into the wrong social class.

Okay, if I had created a page entitled Bastards in literature or Gangbangs in literature I think no one, including myself, would be happy with that. But why can't you live with losers? Aren't they part of all our lives? --KF 23:19 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

"Losers" is a loaded and very derogatory term (at least in the US). I've already suggested an alternative that if used will make me happy and I'll drop this issue. --mav

OK, "antihero" then. I hope there won't be an outcry from literary historians claiming that this term is reserved for a particular period, genre, or type of character. --KF 23:41 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

Is it? If so then this would be a more specific list than originally thought. But I'm pretty sure Anti-hero is darn close to what this list is. --mav

I have no idea. I just said that someone might object. But no, go ahead and change it, please. We'll see what happens. I won't be around much longer tonight. KF 23:54 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they will object - I did a good deal of research on the subject and have written anti-hero to serve as a guide to adding names to this list. So because of that and the page move, I hereby withdraw my complaint about this page existing at all. --mav 04:44 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not going to raise an outcry, but I thought there was a difference between anti-hero and loser, at least in literature. the butler Stevens, not neccessarily a loser; but Walter Mitty? J Alfred Prufrock? I think so. Oh well. Perhaps someone will think up the proper literary term, and that'll solve all the problems. Atorpen 04:39 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

The list does need refacting but "loser" is not NPOV. --mav

I agree with that comment above, I'm afraid. "Anti-hero" and "loser" aren't at all the same thing in my understanding, and I don't think the names in this list correspond with the definition that's been created. It's a very specific thing - I can't see Prufrock or Mitty as an anti-hero. Deb 23:03 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

When I started this list I was hoping that two things would happen: (a) that someone would attempt a definition of "loser" (that's not easy: a Google search gets you lots of fun pages but little else), and (b) that people would start discussing and adding to the novels and plays on the list (based on their having actually read them). I hadn't realized that you could also violate fictional characters' human rights. KF 23:15 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Their rights are irrelevant. NPOV is the issue here. --mav 23:51 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

I tried to point out several times that NPOV could not possibly apply to fictional characters simply because that's how the people who invent them want them to be. Since he cannot "prove a lover", Richard III chooses to be a villain; Scrooge McDuck was designed by Carl Barks to be a miser; and Tennessee Williams decided, when writing the screenplay for Baby Doll, that Archie Lee should be a loser. I give up. KF 00:18 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that "loser" is a defined literary term ergo we would be only guessing what the intention of the author really is ergo it would be our POV that a character is a "loser" and our own ideas and POV about what a loser is will guide the process. --mav

The guessing game you mention is usually referred to as literary criticism. --KF 00:55 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

That is definitely not our role here: But we can and should report what experts say about works of literature. --mav

As I said: I give up. --KF

In whodunits the murderer is often found out at the very end of the novel. His or her being tried and convicted is almost never described. This would mean we cannot call such a character a murderer (presumed innocent!). We even would have to call such novels "alleged murder mysteries". Anything else would be highly POV!

• Loser literature at amazon.

But the murderer nearly always confesses! Deb 21:58 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, 193.171.249.98. I think this discussion is over. But there are lots of others going on right now. :) --KF 22:02 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

Anti-heroes is the wrong word too. It means the opposite of a hero - and here in the wimp/loser contex, but before following the link I assumed it meant "Criminal mastermind" figures. BTW if this page is here for good, the list satnds a chance of being as long as the list of fictional books ever published. -- SGBailey 22:05 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

No. Anti-hero is not the opposite of hero. Please read anti-hero. Make special note of the fate of all anti-heroes. --mav 00:18 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

Does anyone think that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are anti-heroes? If not anti-heroes of Hamlet at least of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead. I dunno. -- Goatasaur

Hm. Definitely not for Hamlet because their roles are just too minor. Possibly Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead but the anti-hero is more of a dramatic, not commedic concept. I say go ahead and list them and if somebody has a problem with them being on the list then we can revisit this question. I simply don't know enough about Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is give a better response. --mav

I'd say that Ros and Guil fit perfectly into what's described in the second para of the "Types" section of anti-hero (in Stoppard, I mean, not in Shakespeare). --Camembert

I've added them to the list, anyway, and if they go on, then Didi and Gogo from Godot have to go on as well. So they have. --Camembert

I fail to see how Rosencrantz, Guildenstern, Vladimir, and Estragon are anti-heroes. Tragic heroes, perhaps, but anti-heroes, I fail to see. -- Anonymous

Questions

I am under the impression that an anti-hero always has good intent. I put in a third "type" of anti-hero, the "ends justify the means" type. That leaves me with two questions:

• In the computer game Warcraft III and its expansion set The Frozen Throne, are Illiyan (sp?) and the Warden (I forget her name) anti-heros? The former tries to gain the power of demons for the purpose of saving his people; the latter becomes obsessed with vengance against someone she believes to be evil (but whom is perhaps reformed) to the extent of lying and betraying allies.
• Is there a term "dark hero"? I am thinking of a character whom is tortured by his or her past, and attempts to do good to perhaps overcome some sin or right perceived wrongs. In comic books, these are often drawn with dark colors. Three similar examples are Batman (tortured by parents' murder) and Daredevil (father's murder), and (to a lesser extent) Spider-Man (uncle's murder). Perhaps another character could be a former criminal and has since changed their ways and is trying to make up for the wrong they did in their "past life."

--zandperl 23:06, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

THIS LIST OF "ANTI-HEROES" IS SO EXHAUSTIVE IT RENDERS THE LABEL MEANINGLESS. [--User:who the hell knows. Sure as hell it wasnt me-KV]

Shouldnt Macbeth be in the list? I ask- Krasniy Volk

PD: Someone added up this in Film Alfred J. Kwak

Hell, someone submit it to the Random Nonsense section of Wikipedia

NPOV

I agree with a previous contributor: There is no way this list could ever really be NPOV unless it is redefined as "List of Characters Some Subjective Reader Considers to be Antiheroes." "Antihero" is a well-defined, well-understood literary term, but whether or not certain characters fit into the category is the stuff of term papers, and we all know how we feel about term papers on Wikipedia. Sure, most of us agree that Holden Caufield is almost a dictionary definition of the antihero, but when I saw Severus Snape from the Harry Potter books on this list, I almost choked. The antihero must be either the protagonist or a character working alongside the protagonist, and Snape is neither.

Then I realized what I was doing: Assuming as fact what other readers might disagree with. The argument could be made, of course, the Snape is working with Harry, but Harry just doesn't see it, making Snape the most anti antihero ever.

Do you see what I'm saying here? The very fact that it's so easy to argue for or against any character's inclusion on this list makes the list itself impossibly non-NPOV. Sure, I've got a right to remove Snape from the list, but someone else has the right to add him right back, and then to add Jem from Jem and the Holograms too, for that matter. There's just no way we're ever going to come to agreement on who belongs on this list and who doesn't. I think it needs to go. Mitchell k dwyer 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

anti-heroes?

I don't think many of the names listed fit the antihero concept. Just one example: Hercules. He is the norm for hero in greek mythology. Calling him an antihero is too far-fetched. He was a demi-god, had superhuman power, the Nemean pelt for protection and Zeus' love (and Hera's hatred, comes with the family I guess). Not taking into account heroic traits like bravery, discipline, obedience (in greek mythos) etc.

Disputed

I have marked this page as disputed because, despite the various discussions on this board, no action have been taken to mark which of these characters are ACTUALLY anti-heros. Characters like Alex DeLarge are obvious. However, characters such as Achilles and Hercules should NOT be on this list (how can they be anti-heroes when the anti-hero concept didn't exist in the times when these myths were created). Perhaps an argument could be made for Jason from the Argonautica, but he's not even listed! This page, probably like the List of fictional heroes page, hasn't a prayer of a chance at factual accuracy. --CaveatLector 08:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

what about real life anti-heroes?

such as Johnny Rotten or Bob Dylan? Kingturtle 19:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Deletion review (January 17, 2006)

List of anti-heroes

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of anti-heroes

Note: I have never made an edit to this article, so my following arguments are not slighted in that regard. Kingturtle

When it was deleted earlier today, this article was nearly three years old and had over 700 edits. User:Howcheng deleted it despite a 20+% keep sentiment. The article that has been worked on by over 100 regiestered users and dozens of anonymous (nearly 30 of which made three or more edits) and not one saw it fit to nominate it for deletion. Moreover, the TALK page of the article was used civilly, apporpriately and successfully to make the article better. Certainly, VfD nominator User:CaveatLector could have used the TALK page to work with the contributors in improving the article. Certainly some of the compliants voiced in the VfD could have been addressed in the TALK page.

I think it is a diservice to these contributors to leave them out of the VfD process. Yes, yes, you'll say, they had their chance - but I don't think you realize that VfD tags often go unnoticed. Tags can get buried in or vanish from watchlists; users can be away. Contributors should be not punished for this. Indeed, I considered notifying eighteen of the registered contributors who had made 3+ edits to tell them to tell them of the VfD - NOT to campaign, but to let them know - as a service to them and the community. Before I did, I asked in two places ([1] and [2]) to get an idea of how and if such notification should be done. By the time I started getting answers, though, it was too late.

Therefore, I propose the article be re-instated because:

1. 20+% voted to keep
2. issues with defining anti-hero and with renaming the article can be cleared up in TALK
3. over 100 people have worked on the article and successfully used TALK to resolve matters

Sincerely, Kingturtle 21:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse/keep deleted. I see absolutely nothing wrong with process. An argument based on the number of edits and contributors is faulty, and has nothing to do with deletion process. In fact, too often with lists like this too many contributors are the problem; people add anything/anyone that comes into their mind with no discussion, and these lists quickly become unmaintainable, POV, and meaningless. I believe List of heroes was deleted under similar circumstances. I'm starting to think it's about time to nominate List of unusual personal names for similar reasons. -R. fiend 21:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • i think contributors have a right to know that their work is being considered for deletion. tagging an article is not sufficient. ideally i think all significant contributors (who are registered) should be personally notified. since that is not practical, then at least the originator of the article should be personally notified (if that person is registered). this is about courtesy and kindness. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And I think a vast majority of the crap on AfD should be deleted on sight. I also think zucchini is an overrated vegetable. Anyway, if people really care about an article and their contributions to it they'll keep it on their watchlist. -R. fiend 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • R fiend, VfD tags don't make it to watchlists. if a VfD tag is added at 8 PM and another edit on the article happens at 9 PM and someone looks at their watchlist at 9:15pm, that VfD tag is missed. a kinder, gentler way is for the VfD nominator to personally alert the creator of the article. it should be part of the VfD process - if not formally, than customarily. Kingturtle 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If someone adds an AfD template to an article, it certainly does appear on the watchlist. If another change is made afterwards, that doesn't make the earlier change disappear; anyone clicking the "diff" on the newest edit will also see the entire article appear below the highlighted change, and a big old AfD template is hard to miss. -R. fiend 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • you're expecting someone on a more than weekly basis to click on "diff" on each of their 1800 watchlist articles? it just doesn't work that way. Kingturtle 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, no one has to have 1800 articles on their watchlist, and, yes, I would expect people to pretty carefully check the articles that are most important to them. If all you're doing is looking at the summary of the last edit to any article you aren't really watching it, and maybe your watchlist should be brought down to a more managable number. A potential solution I can think of is to try to introduce a system in which tags are posted on talk pages as well, since they generally get fewer edits the "AFD" summary won't be pre-empted as frequently by more recent edits. -R. fiend 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • plenty of people have 1000s in their watchlists. it helps broaden the scope against vandalism. nevertheless, things still get past watchlists. a potential system i can think of is for the VfD nominator to courteously inform the author of the article that said article has been nominated. Kingturtle 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AFD discussion was fair and balanced and considered the case for and against the article. I see no process problems with this decision. Please remember that no user can review every article or even every deletion discussion. The nature of a wiki is that we trust that enough interested users are watching that the right thing gets done. Kingturtle is correct that some users who worked on versions of this article may not have had the chance to participate in the debate. It is equally true that other users did not get to participate who may have opposed the article but weren't motivated enough to nominate it themselves. In a perfect world, we'd all have unlimited time and interest. The real processes are messier but they do seem to work. Rossami (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do not think it is fair. simply tagging an article for deletion does not announce the nomination properly. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Arguments given on VfD were convincing. --Improv 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • many of those arguments could have been hashed out in the TALK page. that is what TALK pages are for. if there are concerns about the title of the article or the how to define words, discuss it in TALK. that article had a very lengthy and well-used TALK page. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. I believe that what those who want to keep the list deleted are voicing here amounts to a misguided attempt at democracy (no one is excluded from voting, it's your job to stay informed) which shows a striking likeness to a False Rubicon. Kingturtle has pointed out very well how hard it is to keep up to date about such things. If one single user had been in a different mood and had not put up this article for deletion it would have gone unnoticed for a long time to come. Please do not delude yourselves into thinking that everything is okay if collaborative work of more than three years is destroyed on the whim of a handful of deletionists. <KF> 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Although I don't really care about the article one way or another, saying that the article might have gone unnoticed for a long time is not a reason to keep it. The reason to keep the article should be that it's NPOV and properly referenced. Collaborative work on a non-encyclopedic article should not stay regardless of how much work is put into it. That's a sunk cost. We judge the article based on its contents, not on how much effort went into it. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What you write about is not what I'm saying, and anyway this is not the place for a discussion—that would have been the article's talk page (or this discussion page). Does the "we" in "We judge the article ..." exclude me? Who is "we"? <KF> 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
      • "We" = people who are experienced in AfD discussions. howcheng {chat} 07:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh. <KF> 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. If the most convincing argument available for restoration is "awww, shucks, it had some edits" then I'm really not persuaded. -Splash^talk 22:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • some edits? this was an article worked on for years by dozens of users. it should be common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under consideration for deletion. it is common courtesy. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close. 9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems. The arguments against the article were spelled out in the AfD in some detail, and look reasonable and fairly convincing. No process problems, no issues raised but ignored, no new info provided here, no policy violations. Sorry. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • er...75% is not a consensus. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I feel the deletion is unfortunate, but to be perfectly honest it wasn't an article, or a subject, in which I had much emotional or intellectual investment. Lee M 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse close and keep deleted. This is a prime example of listcruft; the Afd process was followed. The argument given for undeletion is not germane, per DESiegal. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep your mind open to topics that others find interesting. just because it isn't up your alley doesn't mean it isn't useful to someone else. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure as per DESiegel. --Allen3 ^talk 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure per DESiegel. Mackensen (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion 20% is not exactly a close result, its not like 40% voted keep. Also, basing the overturning of a deletion on the number of edits and editors does not act as a sufficient reason - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No? Who says so? Before this is repeated over and over and over again, let me point out for a second time that I've tried to describe the problem I see at this discussion page. <KF> 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 80% is not a consensus. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I will normally close 10K / 21D as a delete, and so will many other admins. This is far stronger than that. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Not that much stronger. 9/3 means a 25% keep. If one single person had decided that the page was worth a keep instead of a delete, the vote would be 8/4, or a 33% keep. Or a less than 70% consensus for deletion, and it is very likely that the closing admin might have changed their evaluation. Seems a shame that a three-year old article's fate can swing on a single voter like that. Turnstep 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted The delete votes in the AfD makes a set of very good points about the innate problems with the article; the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the closure was flawed. Eusebeus 21:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Having fun, aren't you? As I can see, the same "argument" is being repeated over and over and over again. Please point me to the guideline/policy/whatever where it says that "the fact that many people have laboured on a bad article is unfortunate, but not sufficient to redeem the subject". What were all those people thinking when they contributed? That they were taking part in a futile effort that would eventually be deleted by a small set of other people? Meanwhile, for the third time, these are my reasons for wanting to have this list undeleted (from Wikipedia_talk:Lists_in_Wikipedia#Deleting_lists.2C_and_a_proposal):

    While I agree that "lists are not a place to make value judgements of people or organizations", recent deletions of what at least some consider useful lists have alerted me. True, the above List of anti-heroes ("a prime example of listcruft", according to one deletionist) should have been called List of fictional anti-heroes to make it absolutely clear that no politicians or other real people must be added.

    "The usefulness of lists in Wikipedia is very clear as it often provides the starting point for readers to research a particular subject." Search printed encyclopaedias or other reference material, search the Internet—some of the lists here at Wikipedia are unique, or were until they were deleted (just think of List of song titles phrased as questions). (Fortunately, Wikipedia mirror sites still have those lists.) As for literature lists, students of literature browsing such a list may find valuable advice on what books to choose and read.

    There is hardly any problem with original research as, by definition, a list of titles is, if anything, the basis for research rather than research itself. Verifiability depends on the individual list—song titles phrased as questions are no problem. The same holds true for the neutral point of view policy.

    My point is that fiction needs to be treated as a special case as far as verifiability and NPOV are concerned (see Category:Literature lists for examples). The List of fictional war heroes, which has also been put up for deletion, is a case in point. I claim that the vast majority of people who use the Internet to consult an encyclopaedia are mature enough not to believe every word they read. Additionally, a special template (to be created) might point them to the fact not that the list is incomplete and they should add something to it but that it is deliberately so and will always contain contentious items because it is in the nature of fiction to be debatable. Thus, to me such a sapere aude hint would be most welcome. Each and everyone can make up their own mind: This, I believe, is part of human nature. The alternative, which is currently being practised, is wholesale deletion, which is radical and to all intents and purposes counterproductive but nothing else.

    Problems inherent in the collaborative nature of this project must be considered and dealt with, not deleted. How long will it take until someone calls the List of film remakes (which already has that stupid {{listdev}} tag) POV, unmaintainable, ambiguous, incomplete, too short, too long, unmanagable, unreferenced, unencyclopaedic, unbalanced? In the long run, what will happen with the List of years in literature pages if people keep adding births, deaths, "events", and book titles? Will they all have to be deleted?

    "9D/3K looks like a fairly clear consensus to me, and I see no process problems", writes one deletionist at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_anti-heroes, and subsequent contributors mutely endorse him. However, in democratic thought, voting is an alternative to, not a synonym for, consensus decision-making. But this is quite a different problem, which I'll have to address at some other place. <KF> 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

    • As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say. -Splash^talk 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Excuse me, what are you referring to? <KF> 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Your use of "deletionist" in an obviously pejorative sense. -Splash^talk 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• comment. i have had this complaint about VfD for a long time. we are going down a slippery slope if 80% is considered a consensus. we are also going down a slippery slope if we don't have the common courtesy to alert contributors that their work is under review for deletion. Kingturtle 06:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's consensus, not consensus. If Wikipedia decisionmaking required actual consensus, nothing would ever happen. android79 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • i know that there is a difference, and wikipedia's notion of consensus is absurd. we should use the term super-majority, because consensus is the wrong word. Kingturtle 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right about that, but the word is ingrained into Wikipedia culture. That's a change that just won't happen. Whenever you read "consensus", just think "rough consensus" or "supermajority". android79 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pleased that Kingturtle is volunteering to go through today's AfD log and drop each contributor to each article a note on their talk pages regarding their article's AfD. -Splash^talk 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • That's neat - someday I'd like this to be a software feature... oh, and Keep Deleted. I would have voted delete myself too and remember this afd - along with KingTurtle's commentary which seemed to appeal to emotion rather than addressing the actual problems with the article. Anyway, that's really a side note as the AfD was quite valid in nearly every way. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • If any, what are the "actual problems with the article"? A reference to an (almost) "quite valid AfD" is immaterial here: If the deletion of the list had violated Wikipedia's deletion policy we would not be having a discussion here and the article would immediately have been restored. I believe it is new arguments which, for some reason or other, were not mentioned during the AfD process that count here. However, new arguments seem to be generously ignored or sidetracked here ("As soon as someone starts namecalling, I start filtering out everything they say"). Also, I don't think Kingturtle's mention of the many contributors to this article is an appeal to emotion: If dozens of people over a period of more than three years collaboratively create an article they do so in good faith and because they want to improve Wikipedia—we might consider their contributions to the deleted article keep votes eo ipso. (more) <KF> 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and relist on AfD - There's a serious problem with the article that was deleted, namely that it is a magnet for POV and unverifiable claims, and CaveatLector put together a good AfD. I am nonethless unhappy with it: I think that, despite its flaws, the list brought together at that page had value (was it an anti-list? Nevermind...) and given the long history and much work put into the page, the main question asked at the AfD should not have been: does this list meet our standards, but can this list be repaired? I think that, given the definition at anti-hero, the list could be and deserves a second hearing. --- Charles Stewart 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I dislike the new fashion for deleting talk pages when executing delete decisions. --- Charles Stewart 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's not a new trend. Deciding whether or not to delete the orphaned Talk Page is a long-standing rule - a required step of the Deletion process since the first version of that page and, before that, a required step in the Deletion guidelines for administrators. For those not familiar with it, deletion of the associated Talk page is not an absolute rule (though the vast majority of such Talk pages are deleted). The deleting admin is required to make a decision about whether or not the Talk page should be preserved. By long tradition, that decision is left to the admin's discretion. We do not require a second deletion discussion to make the decision. Rossami (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry I missed this. On policy, I stand corrected, but I have quite often seen marooned talk pages, and have frequently found them useful. --- Charles Stewart 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. First, I have problems with some of the math used. By my count, there were 9 delete votes, and 3 keep votes. That leads to a 25% keep faction, and a 75% delete faction. I think that the age and amount of work on the article should also be a factor: certainly the fact that it has been around and hevily edited for three years at least discounts the "unmaintainable" arguments. The AfD process is entirely too random and arbitrary. I think if this had been nominated some other week, the votes could have easily been 10d/2k, or 8/4, or even 6/7, depending on who happened to be reading AfD that week. Therefore, especially in the case of established articles with a long history, the bar for deletion should be set higher than 75%. Turnstep 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. While I think that the process was proper, this is one of those instances where deletion review should look at the big picture. We are supposed to work on consensus. Can we really say that there is a "consensus to delete" an article that over 100 registered editors worked on simply because nine people in a particular five day period expressed a desire to delete, particluarly when the nominee (as most nominees do, including me) only pointed out the reasons to delete. Note that no one during the voting pointed out the facts that Kingturtle does. Lets put it back on AfD with both the pros and the cons and see how it fares. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is no bar for ratio of participants in AfD to editors of the article, no quota for how long or short an article's history must be before we can delete it, and certainly no requirement that we notify anyone. You edit an article, and if you care about it you watch over it. Part of the beauty of the self-selection excercise is impartiality of participants. Lists in particular attract large numbers of editors, and I despair at the thought of the sorting out the mess if we involved every one. The process works well enough, and these are all bad ways we're talking about changing it. - brenneman^(t)(c) 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Aaron, at least on my part, I don't think I am arguing to change anything. I made two points. First, the statement at the top of this page says that undoing a deletion is proper if you "have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate". I am saying that the information posted by Kingturtle was relevant to the discussion and should be aired. Second, there have been discussions in the past about how many delete "votes" is "enough" or whether, for example, debate should be extended. Nine votes is far more than necessary for most articles. On the other hand, if a former Featured Article made it through an AfD vote with a 4-0 delete vote, I would be very disappointed if the closer did not question whether 4 votes to delete an article that probably had a hundred hours invested in it really represented a consensus to delete. I hope that is not a change, because if everyone is so rigidly evaluating "consensus" that they would allow 4 people to delete a Featured Article then we ought to automate the counting and eliminate the personal judgment instead of pretending to determine consensus. I am not arguing for this article to be kept, just that 9 delete votes on the facts before us is not a consensus to delete. Relist, post the relevant facts - pro and con - and let the people decide. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• What is this based on? A supposition that a relisting will magically have the effect of 50 participants, when getting 12 (not 9) in the first place is highly unusual? It might, and statistically probably would, get fewer participants; will we relist the relisting because the relisting of the relisting didn't get enough? Are the original 12's opinion somehow not good enough? Kingturtle's 'information' relies on looking at the history of the article — this was available to all at the time of the AfD and is hardly new information. Posting the relevant facts, pro and con, was doing already, and I don't see how "aww, shucks, it's got some edits" makes an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable. And, incidentally, you imply that the people were excluded from things the first time around; I wonder how you have reached such a conclusion? -Splash^talk 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Splash, I'll take your points in the reverse order since the last two are the easiest to answer. I don't know what I said that you think implies that people were excluded from the AfD but no such implication was intended. I also don't think that a large number of edits make "an article either good, encyclopedic, or keepable" and again, no such implication was intended. I don't suggest that anyone should vote "keep" on any basis other than whether the article is one which should be kept under the applicable standards. My only concern is that AfD is not infallable and that nine editors voting to delete may express the consensus of the voters during that five day period but seems to hardly represent a consensus of Wikipedians when so many editors have contributed to the article over a three year period. This is an uncommon situation. And you are absolutely correct that Kingturtle's information was available to anyone who wanted to delve into the page's history and talk page. However, I think that as the number of pages on AfD has continued to grow, it is unrealistic to assume that potential voters will do any more than read what is on the AfD page. Hopefully, those that are attracted to stop and record their opinion will look at the history and talk pages but from all appearances many simply parrot the previous opinions and don't even look at the page itself, let alone the talk page and history. Finally, I don't know if relisting on AfD will get more attention, but if the pros and cons are both set out succinctly, that is about all that we can ask of the process. If the result is still 9-3 in favor of deletion, we can't guess the opinion of those who chose not to express their choice (or more likely, were unaware of AfD). What all this boils down to is simply that in those relatively rare instances that we think that the AfD process hasn't worked well as a process, we should try to fix it. We can't fix all the problems at once, but this one seems easy to do. -- DS1953 ^talk 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is absurd, on multiple counts. First of all, assuming that the 100+ edits actually wanted to keep the article is downright silly - some people are nuetral and others might have just worked on the article because they couldn't take it any more (the reason why I work on some schools...). Second, the argument that the opening statement biases it is wrong - I've heard that argument a million times on WP:RM, people asking me to do it over etc., but it just doesn't pan out and you get the same result anyway. This was a valid AfD if I ever saw one - as the burden of proof was on the nominator to give a good reason to delete the article and he/she did so, and the following keeps simply didn't have much of a reason at all to keep the article. "It's been here a long time and had lots of editors" is an appeal to emotion and ultimately has little to do with the validity of the article. "I want to make the same argument again because this article had lots of editors" is not a reason for relisting, in fact it is probably offensive to those who took the time on the first one, especially since they already heard that argument. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Kingturtle's (possibly) facetious arguments about the definition of consensus notwithstanding, this seems to have followed process. Old lists can be better served by categorization in many cases. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. FWIW, I'm one of those 100+ who edited the list, and also one of the nine who voted to delete for the reasons given in the AfD. -Sean Curtin 00:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, you did not give a reason, you merely suggested possibly a redirect to anti-hero or List of heroes (the latter of which was not redlinked because it was deleted and given the salt-the-earth treatment). Turnstep 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and re-list. I am particularly worried about the closing admin's comment "Yikes, this article was almost three years old!": are we to take it that all the old articles should be cleared out to make room? Also note that the "discussion" took place over the New Year holiday, which makes it less likely that people were available to notice that it was taking place. The comment "anything that classes Rincewind and Thomas Covenant as the same sort of person is too vague" implies that the editor has failed to appreciate the point of what an anti-hero is. Lastly, the discussion raises the worry that the old nastiness of "list-cruft, die, die, die!" is rearing its ugly head again: there are many precedents for having lists on Wikipedia, we even have featured lists for crying out loud. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mostly excellent points, but I understood the closing admins intent was to say: now we see that the article isn't worthy of inclusion - look how long it's been messing up WP. --- Charles Stewart 11:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, if this had not happened around the New Year, I would have more than likely seen it and voted keep. (Of course, other deletionists may have also voted, but at least I've be a little happier with a larger number of people participating). Turnstep 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Having watched the article in question degenerate into a list of people who aren't perfectly virtuous, I voted to have it deleted because I felt it was a lost cause. Any attempt at a List of fictional anti-heroes would be better off starting from scratch. -Rjo 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• I wonder why nobody has done the obvious thing with this article, and undeleted an early version, keeping the more recent nonsense deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana

  All undeleting an old version of the article would do is reset the clock so that the same problems may repeat themselves. --Allen3 ^talk 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)