Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female superheroes

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. ✗plicit 12:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of female superheroes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE to the extreme— do you know how many superheroes are female? I don’t, but suffice to say A LOT, probably so many we don’t need to list them all per WP:MILL. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too large to make a usable list, even if limited to individually notable characters. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, as large in scope as List of sportswomen? Or List of women writers? Daranios (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t honestly need those either… ~50% of the population are women. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet that is not the case for notable people in those fields, as opposed to people in general - there's still a strong need for such lists to highlight important boundary-breaking people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there though? Women routinely become sportspeople and writers— some sports (like gymnastics and netball) and genres (romance fiction) are probably dominated by women. Similarly there are huge numbers of female superheroes, and if you included groups like magical girls (which arguably are just a slightly different kind of superhero) females would dominate certain areas of that too. That’s why I referenced WP:MILL— there’s no real novelty behind women being superheroes that requires listing them exhaustively. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a question we should pose to the participants of WP:Women in Red. Or we could look to secondary sources rather than our own impression. Check out this one: "...certain demographic groups have been overrepresented while those from more marginalized groups have been underrepresented and stereotyped. Female superheroes exemplify this underrepresentation and stereotyping..." One example of how female superheroes have been of interest to scholars, rather than being so common as to "not stand out from the rest". Daranios (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's only indiscriminate in that the page currently lacks prose putting the list into context, but the topic of women superheroes is clearly notable, given that entire books have been published on the subject, so that could easily be remedied. pburka (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a strong reason to have a list with prose providing context, rather than a prose article? TompaDompa (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could even have both. pburka (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there any strong reason to? If the problem with the list is that it needs prose, having a list with explanatory prose and a separate prose article seems terribly redundant. TompaDompa (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - This list can't be redundant with an article that doesn't exist. pburka (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure if you're missing the point or intentionally ignoring it. You said that the problem with the list is that it needs prose. I'm asking whether you think there's a strong reason to add prose to the list rather than replace the list with prose. You suggested that we could have a list with prose and additionally a prose article. I'm asking whether you think there's a strong reason to have both, since having both seems redundant to me. You rather nonsensically said that the list isn't redundant to a prose article since the latter doesn't exist, which may be true but really has nothing to do with your suggestion to have two articles: a list article that includes prose and additionally a prose article. TompaDompa (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        A prose article discusses the topic. The list article provides a navigation help for what on the subject exists distributed on Wikipedia. So both have separate functions and therefore independent reasons to exist. Daranios (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that's your view on the matter and that we generally disagree on the navigational merits of lists like this (why does the list have redlinked and unlinked entries, is anybody actually going to come to this list to find the article they are looking for, would prose be better for exploratory browsing, and so on). pburka suggested that the list needs prose for context, and also suggested that a prose article be created in addition to the list. I'm trying to figure out what they think the benefit of organizing it like that would be. TompaDompa (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to to give my opinion, I think redlinked and unlinkable entries without secondary sources backing them up, which are only a very small percentage of the current list, should be removed to avoid any appearance of WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems - which is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. Daranios (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that's only part of the problem with a list like this: it is by design not meant to be exhaustive (unlike e.g. List of James Bond novels and short stories), not ordered in a way that conveys information (unlike e.g. Stephen King bibliography), not informational in other ways either (unlike e.g. List of cities founded by Alexander the Great), and not plausibly a navigational aid for people looking for a specific article (unlike e.g. Lists of Ancient Roman governors). It is essentially an exercise in stamp collecting. As with most topics, WP:PROSE would almost certainly be a better way to cover the subject matter. TompaDompa (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Lists are popular among certain Wikipedians because they’re extremely easy to “improve” (essentially busywork) or they can’t use categories and/or assume most readers can’t. If categories were made more accessible, especially in mobile, we would easily be able to cull most “stamp collecting” lists. Dronebogus (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm afraid you've missed my point. The nomination rationale is false because this list isn't indiscriminate, or, if it really is lacking context (as described by WP:INDISCRIMINATE), the problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. pburka (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that's your view on whether this list article should be deleted, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your suggestion to add prose to this article and also to create a separate, stand-alone prose article. Why organize it like that? TompaDompa (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't expressed a view on whether this list article should be deleted, and I haven't proposed any reorganization. pburka (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        You said we could have both a list with prose providing context and a prose article. TompaDompa (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying we can't have a list and an article on the same topic? pburka (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying that if the list needs prose for context (in order to not be indiscriminate, or for some other reason), adding prose to the list and creating a prose article seems like a weird way of organizing it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I think lists should have a few sentences of prose putting the contents into context and explaining the inclusion criteria. This isn't the same as an in-depth discussion of the topic of the portrayal of women in superhero fiction, which one might hope to find in a standalone article. pburka (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much like the list of female supervillains, this is too broad a list. As TomaDompa so well put it, a prose article would be massively better, possibly discussing both female superheroes AND supervillains. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it more, I'll have to vote keep instead - this article has a companion page already, Portrayal of women in American comics, and simply needs cleanup to remove non-notable characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we can surely debate if we want this list on Wikipedia or not, I have not seen any policy-based arguments backing up the delete-opinions. Length, specifically, is not a reason for deletion. As long as we limit the list to notable characters, as suggested by LaundryPizza03 and mostly already the case, none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: This is not a collection of indiscriminate, uncommented information, but rather a cross-reference of information which has already been deemed notable and encyclopedic enough to include on Wikipedia, making this a navigational list in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV. So far the only additional information the list gives beyond the category is the publisher/comics series and sometimes minor bits of commentary. Ideally, this could be somewhat expanded and made sortable, but it is already something.

Pinging if any of the participants of the long past previous deletion discussion are still around: @Jc37, Gandalf61, Smeazel, BOZ, and Jack-A-Roe:. Daranios (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and I haven't seen a compelling argument to delete it. It does have lots of room to WP:IMPROVE, e.g., I'd recommend converting the list to a table and including additional context, such as date of first appearance and creator. The list should also be restricted to individually notable characters in order to constrain its scope (either blue links or well-referenced ref links). It should also link to prose articles offering deeper coverage of this notable topic. pburka (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic, and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, and per Superwomen: Gender, Power, and Representation, Carolyn Cocca, 2016, Bloomsbury Publishing - "Over the last 75 years, superheroes have been portrayed most often as male, heterosexual, white, and able-bodied. Today, a time when many of these characters are billion-dollar global commodities, there are more female superheroes, more queer superheroes, more superheroes of color, and more disabled superheroes--but not many more." Beccaynr (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2023 (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.