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.
What are you suggesting it be merged with? How does merging solve the problem of being unsourced speculation? The information will still fail WP:ATT. Jay3218305:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should be sourced. But what do you mean speculation? Maybe if it was the List of possible Antichrists (wouldn't you want to read that article though?) I would leave it and tag for sourcing. Citicat05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, original research, not evident that the subject of fictional antichrists is encyclopaedic in the first place so a list of them is questionable. Guy (Help!) 11:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to make an issue of this (I hope), but isn't the problem with that article that the entries are speculation? Entries in this list can be limited to those that are specifically mentioned as being the Antichrist. If you want to say the list has no encyclopedia value I'll understand the point (although I feel otherwise) Citicat17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Antichrist does not have a clear, objective definition. "List of fictional characters to be called Antichrists" would not be an encyclopedic list. The problem with this list is that it cannot be sourced properly because some one has to make a judgement call. Jay3218317:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a Christian, but isn't the Antichrist part of Armageddon? At least in Good Omens Adam is clearly referred to as the Antichrist, the son of the Devil, and necessary to bring on the final battle between good and evil. Someone correct be if I'm wrong. Citicat03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how our own article on Antichrist defines it. The list does not have a clearly defined criteria for inclusion, and that's where the problem is coming from. There's no clear definition so people have to make judgement calls, and you can't source a judgement call. Jay3218304:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason this couldn't be a decent little list if it is sourced properly. It wouldn't be OR to say that the dude in the Left Behind series is a fictional antichrist, for intstance. Oskar20:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But can it be completely sourced with an objective criteria for inclusion? The source doesn't just need to point out the character actually exists within the work of fiction, but that the character is actually referred to as an antichrist. Most of the characters already on the list won't have that capability. My reasoning for nominating isn't just that it isn't sourced properly, but that it cannot be sourced properly. Jay3218322:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of the characters listed here are either explicitly Antichrists in the works in which they appear, or (as in the case of the South Park character and Randall Flagg) are implicitly associated with the role in the context of the fiction. -Sean Curtin04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you intend to source the implicit ones? The South Park character is never referred to as Antichrist. "Son of the devil" does not equal "Antichrist". Jay3218305:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The more important part was the sourcing issue. How is the sourcing going to work? I still feel uncertain that it can be sourced since no one has made a real attempt to. The one external jump that was added doesn't seem to actually work. Jay3218318:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or merge So WP can determine and verify which "Antichrists" are fictional and (more importantly?) whether any aren't fictional. Carlossuarez4618:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can easily verify that all of these are fictional characters. It's the verifying them as antichrists that's tricky. Jay3218319:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word "fictional" is used to mean that all of these come from works of fiction, not that the concept of antichrist is fictional. Jay3218300:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging by its present state, the article has clear criteria and definable bounds. As long as it avoids the temptation to include all villains under this name ,it should do well. There is a purpose to such articles--so that a reader having checked one, can see additional ones, and this list provides more information than a category. DGG03:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The composition of the list is clear enough and in keeping with other lists of its kind. The line items on the list can be supported by references, it just takes some diligence to find reputable reviews ... I'll not cite the guidelines on movie reviews, but essentially these need to be published in mainstream periodicals or books and not merely blog postings (the vast majority of movie reviews are only blog postings now). I've added two external links to supporting material for one of the line items (not using Template:Cite_news, sorry). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the end there will only be two or three you can source like that, not deserving of a list. Also, the list does not have a clear scope because the term "Antichrist" itself does not have a clear scope. It is subjective to call some one an antichrist. Jay3218314:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I started at the top, did the first two line items and found support for each; that seems like a high hit rate for the ability to find supporting references. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you'll find one for the third as well, because it's The Omen. After that, you have things that would not have been written about in reputable reviews, things written as speculation (arguably), and one that is even wrong (Point Pleasant, daughter of the devil but not antichrist). Do you really want to maintain a list of three? Jay3218315:16, 24 March 2007 (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.