Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female supervillains (5th 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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:29, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of female supervillains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Far too many examples to bother listing; WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:MILL cross-category Dronebogus (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Likely too large to list, even if limited to notable characters. For example, there are over 350 articles about characters in Category:Female supervillains and its subcategories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same argument as my 2021 AfD when it was derailed by Andrew D. and friends - maybe now it will have the opportunity for a rational look at why this list is far too broad to work. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As it has been pointed out my argument is flawed here, I will be changing it to the fact that this article does not offer proof the topic has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" per WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Zxcvbnm: Sources which do discuss female supervillains as a group: Women in Popular Culture, p. 229 and following; La maschera dell’antieroe; Best female supervillains in comic books; 4 Reasons We Need More Female Supervillains in Our Lives. That's enough for me to fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:LISTN. There are many more which have short commentary (like this one or this one, where I cannot see the full extent) or which discuss a subset. Daranios (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is way too broad for Wikipedia. It can go into a blog or even a database considering how many female supervillains there are. Conyo14 (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, if only there was a database on Wikimedia… Dronebogus (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wow, a 5th nomination. 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. If we limit the list to notable characters, as suggested by LaundryPizza03 - which needs a bit of trimming, but that's a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem - none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: Then it 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. There is at least a bit of additional information which the category does not provide. Ideally, this could be somewhat expanded and made sortable, but it is already something.

As the last deletion discussion is not very long past, courtesy pinging the other participants who might still be interested: @Andrew Davidson, Dream Focus, Jclemens, Philoserf, Desmay, Estheim, and Jackattack1597:. Daranios (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3/4 of those are 9+ years old, and the most recent one was derailed, delegitimized, and possibly canvassed by Andrew D- who if I recall was t-banned from deletion for engaging in systematic ultra-inclusionist disruption. The point is number of times is not relevant and can’t be used to “kill” a discussion. Dronebogus (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not try to "kill" the discussion, but rather put it on a broader basis. I am not playing any game. Shall we go back to discussing the merits and drawbacks of the article, rather than the participants, while keeping the advice on renominating in view? Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is also the topically related discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female superheroes going on, for those who are interested. Daranios (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per criterion 3, The nomination is completely erroneous. No accurate deletion rationale has been provided. Long lists are not a reason for deletion, fictional supervillains do not become MILL (only an essay, not even a guideline) just by there being a lot of them, and INDISCRIMINATE has been dealt with above. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anywhere in the article that, "discuss[es] the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" of the subject, or a related article that does so, so INDISCRIMINATE indeed applies and the nominator is correct in their assertion. Surely you can come up with hard proof that female supervillainesses are worthy of note, as I did above for Latino superheroes, instead of resorting to relying on technicalities in Wikipedia rules. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zxcvbnm: LaundryPizza03 counted 350+ stand-alone articles within the scope of this list, so presumably there is a lot of discussion of "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence" out there for individual entries. With regard to hard proof that female supervillainesses are worthy of note, please have a look at these search results: [1], [2]. If you want me to state individual secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:OSE - simply saying there are 350 possibly non-notable articles is not sufficient to prove anything. Actual sourcing about the topic is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But WP:OSE does not apply, because I am not comparing to other stuff that exists on Wikipedia, but I am talking about the large number of articles within the scope of our topic, which this list is supposed to index. So far, the argument for deletion was that there are too many items within the scope of the list. Are you now arguing that there are not enough? Or, do you really think that (almost) all of those articles are likely to be deleted on grounds of notability, so that the list may no longer be necessary some time in the future? For actual sourcing on the topic, aside from the individual articles, I have already referred to sources above. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You can’t speedy keep something with multiple delete votes. That means multiple people do not agree with your assessment that the nomination is “completely erroneous”, which isn’t even applicable here. You’re playing the same game Daranios is playing, and Andrew played last time— trying to knock it out prematurely using technicalities. Dronebogus (talk) 11:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You absolutely can. Where did you get the impression that one or more delete !votes prevented an otherwise applicable speedy keep? Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having too many entries to fill a single list, is not a reason to delete the list. Just create multiple list then. If the list had columns that listed additional information, instead of just the name, it'd be more useful. Example, list the year they were created and what their powers are. Dream Focus 20:21, 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 \\ 03:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wp:Indiscriminate refers to data without context as well as things with no inclusion standards Dronebogus (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually it’s WP:NOTDATA but they’re easily confused and both legitimate reasons to delete something Dronebogus (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of the four points of WP:NOTDATA would apply to our list here? Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant WP:NOTDIR, the first one Dronebogus (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first point of WP:NOTDIR specifically allows for listings of notable entries. I guess we can take from that the suggestion to remove non-notable entries without further commentary. But that would be a limited trim, an improvement that can be done through normal editing, and therefore not grounds for deletion according to WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:ATD. Daranios (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Absolutely trivial and not truly encyclopedic. Dympies (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dympies: If that were the case, why would have 350+ individual encyclopedia articles on this topic? Daranios (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - there's no guarantee most of those are notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See my reply above. Is there ever a guarantee for anything? That's why we have WP:AGF. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We need something better here than basically attacking the article for clearly being relevant. I also feel we need to do some kind of AFD salting so we don't have to do this for the 6th time soon.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this article is Kept, could we go longer before a 6th nomination is made?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and amend whatever policy is asserted to apply in contravention to this to clarify that this is a permissible list. The issue I see with this is not its existence, but the absence of sources. BD2412 T 01:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just an observation from reviewing recent AFDs, but it's curious that List of female superheroes has only been nominated at AFD once while the supervillains article has been nominated 5 times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps because there is a notable cause for superheroes than villains? I'm just speculating though. Conyo14 (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can tell from personal experience that it is easier to find sources discussing female superheroes than female supervillains, though both exist. Daranios (talk) 10:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's definitely an interesting insight. What was the outcome for the superhero AfD? Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It was actually nominated twice, though the first time it was nominated under a different name (List of superheroines). Both were kept. Conyo14 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheInsatiableOne: Which of the four points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies to our list here in your view? Daranios (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. ... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Right, so as discussed above we should limit the list to entries already present on Wikipedia, which is already the case for the most part. Then the required context is present at all the blue-linked articles (otherwise they would not be Wikipedia articles). That can be done as part of normal editing and is therefore not grounds for deletion according to WP:SURMOUNTABLE. (Also, we have a very small amount of context present here in the form of the list's structure.) Daranios (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That sounds like arguing that collating data in itself produces context, which seems dubious. TompaDompa (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's arguing that lists in which "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia" are one type of accepted lists on Wikipedia, and are not inherently in conflict with WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as TheInsatiableOne seemed to imply. And that in such lists the encyclopedic explanation are provided in the indvidual articles rather than the list itself, like e.g. List of German-language poets. None of the four specific points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE was said to apply here. Daranios (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Restricting lists to entries with Wikipedia articles is a common way of setting up inclusion criteria, which really has nothing to do with providing context. Saying that the encyclopedic explanation are provided in the indvidual articles rather than the list itself is basically arguing that as long the entries have articles, creating a list is its own justification because collating the links produces the context. TompaDompa (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I am saying that a list restricted to entries with their own articles is justified with regard to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not because collating the links produces the context, but because if there's an article to link to, then that topic has to be encyclopedic and that article has to have the context. - Otherwise how would you explain the existence of List of German-language poets, which is put forth as an illustrative example by WP:Stand-alone lists? There may very well be other considerations, though, like the question if we need a list with regard to WP:CLN, if the list purely provides the article names. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would start by noting that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and go on to point out that fact is not fiction and the two are not to be treated the same way. More to the point: if you have to go elsewhere to find the context, the data is not presented in context, now is it? TompaDompa (talk) 23:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TompaDompa: I believe such a restrictive interpretation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE beyond the listed four cases when applied to lists is contrary to consensus on Wikipedia. The only way to confirm this belief I can think of is pointing to the abundance of other articles which would conflict with this restrictive interpretation, e.g. all disambiguation pages. There may be a difference between fact and fiction, but I think there are no policies to treat them differently on Wikipedia, are there? And then it becomes a point to form local consensus for each individual case if an article/list is wanted or not based on WP:PAGEDECIDE, other reasons being absent. If the data is presented in context elsewhere on Wikipedia and the list does not contain no new information, as long as it helps in navigation to that context, that in my view is a valid approach. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WAF is all about special considerations when dealing with fiction. As for disambiguation pages, we don't have the John Lee disambiguation page because people who share that name make up a meaningful set—we have it to aid readers who are looking for a specific article among the ones listed but don't know its exact title. The difference here is that of course nobody looking for e.g. the Catwoman article is going to come looking at the List of female supervillains article to find it. A list like this doesn't at all serve the same purpose as a disambiguation page. TompaDompa (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  True, disambiguation pages differ in function from our list here, just like lists following WP:LISTPURP-NAV differ from regular articles. That's why I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE should not be applied in exactly the same way to all three types. Though I guess we may disagree on wether the function of browsing falls under the purpose of navigation or not. Thanks for pointing out WP:WAF. In it did not see suggestions to treat such lists on topics of fiction as we have here differently from lists of factual topics, however. Daranios (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The real reason raw-data lists like these exist is because people don’t know categories exist and that’s unlikely to change. There is no novel information or context provided here and that’s patently obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dronebogus: Maybe so, but that means that deletion would hurt rather than help the project overall, if the list helps persons navigate/browse who don't (like to) use categories. And of course lists do have advantages over categories, even if not yet fully realized here. Daranios (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per others, above. - jc37 11:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability is not temporary. This has been discussed four times previously, and in all four times the result was keep. There are plenty of good reasons to keep, but there is no reason to even discuss this when we've been over it so many times already.Jacona (talk) 23:39, 27 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.