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 - While the keep reasoning agrees that reliable sources need to be found (which is self-evident), insufficient reliable source material was presented in this AfD nor was it made clear that such material had a realistic chance of being located. Information taken from the plot itself is not independent reliable source material. Consensus is that there is not enough reliable source material independent of the entries themselves to create an attributable article on the topic. Also, making inferences about the psychiatric diagnoses of fictional characters is both subjective (thus POV) and original research and consensus is that this list was original research. -- Jreferee t/c 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters with posttraumatic stress disorder[edit]

Hopeless huge original research, starting right from Hobbits. Even the list of "real" ones was deleted. `'Míkka 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is OR, if not double OR, compiled by an armchair psychologist diagnosing what might be signs of PTSD in movie and TV characters. This seems to be based on person who (a) is depicted as living through something that looks like a trauma and (b) looks like he is "acting strange". There are very few examples of a plot where it is frankly stated that the person has PTSD. Clint Eastwood's character in Firefox and Bruce Dern in Black Sunday may have been described as having PTSD, but most of these are suggested. Mandsford 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Dont think i need to say much more...Operating 22:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frodo Baggins. That is all. Artw 22:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR, and no use. Crazysuit 06:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit as long as there are a few who have been actually described as this, either in the plot itself or in the reviews, such as 12 O;Clock High, the article will hold. (Frodo is OR as far as I know--though Tolkien may quite possibly have had it mind--and the extensive literature or LOTR might possibly discuss it. ) We do not delete articles where some of the items do not belong. Nor do we delete on the basis of finding one questionable entry and making fun of it. DGG (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. A valid encyclopedia topic, though pruning and sourcing to secondary literature is required. Personally I think it would be more interesting refocused as a discussion rather than a list, but perhaps such an article will emerge if the present one is left to evolve. As to Frodo, given the large amount of literature connecting The Lord of the Rings with Tolkien's WWI experiences, an association between Frodo and shell shock seems reasonable; I will attempt to find a suitable reference for this. Espresso Addict 09:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making inferences about the psychiatric diagnoses of fictional characters is both subjective (thus POV) and original research. Bacchiad 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you know some of the movies, you will know they are more than inferences. But this will be settled not by you & me arguing about it, but by the insertion of sources. probably it should be made clear in the introduction. that PTSD = shell shock, because that's the term used in discussing the earlier works. If necessary the title of the article can be changed to accommodate this. DGG (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list will never be sourced and willl quickly grow out of control. Every character that has ever had any sort of mental problem will be added to the list. Ridernyc 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per users Ridernyc and Bacchiad. Inthegloryofthelilies 15:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Espresso Addict. Well-organized lists are useful reference tools. Cleaning up and sourcing always helps of course. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly original research, and yet another massive trivial list that doesn't belong here. RobJ1981 18:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes its a long list--even massive, and it will be even more imposing when fully documented. . A important topic, apparently. "Doesnt belong here" = IDONTLIKEIT. DGG (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. I could say the same thing about your keep comment, as you vote keep in all fictional AFDs. So that falls under ILIKEIT. Stop being petty, by attacking my comments. RobJ1981 07:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source - if DGG can provide reliable 3rd-party sources that identify each list member as having PTSS, I see no reason to delete it. The Transhumanist 22:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source per above.Biophys 23:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source, it is helpful for those who need to understand PTSD for the sake of a loved one. It shows not only soldiers can get shell shock.
One shot at keep and cleanup Give the article one shot at a keep and cleanup outcome. If it comes back here (after a suitable amount of time) and still/again contains such flagrant violations of WP:NOR then it should go. What can stay in the article? Cases where 1) another character in the same work of fiction says this character has been so diagnosed and that statement is properly cited (verifiable as not requiring interpretation of the source), 2) cases where the author has published in a reliable source that the character has PTSD and that authorial statement is cited, and maybe also 3) cases where a reliable source on the subject of the psychological disorders of fictional characters has published that the fictional character hsa PTSD, and that reliable source publication is properly cited. I doubt that any reliable sources that can meet test 3 exist, but give it enough time and this will no doubt become an academic specialty all its own. GRBerry 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourceless, whoever wants it the most, work on it in your userspace. SolidPlaid 02:46, 12 October 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.