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. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like original research. Uncited, messy and trivial. The JPStalk to me 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a stock Delete vote, fear my generic motives! Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Some of the articles it links to need to be checked out too. Evil albino? Recury 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Looks like someone is doing an Eeeevil cleanup.Slavlin 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the character's name is Dr. Evil, whether he is villainous is inherently unverifiable and may even be POV. For example, the list gives Marcus Brutus (as portrayed in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar) as an example of a villian, yet this is questionable. Likewise the list's inclusion of Holden Caulfield and James Dean (more properly the character he played, James Stark) in Rebel Without A Cause is simply ideosyncratic at best (and in the case of Holden is risible). JChap2007 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete This article is rather clever but probably crosses the line on being OR. For example, I could see many analytical English papers being written on this topic. Allon Fambrizzi 02:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
It's interesting to note that none of the villainous stock characters that I can verify (the Machiavel, documented here, here, and here; the "stage Jew", documented in this essay and this journal article; the femme fatale/villainess, documented in this paper; the madman who wants to blow up the planet, critiqued in this essay by Orson Scott Card; and the Evil Redneck Woman, documented in this article) actually exist in this article. This article was broken out of stock character when the list in that article became overlong, but little to no attempts have been made to ensure that the lists were actually verifiable. A verifiable list probably can be written, starting with the aforementioned, but this isn't it. At this point it is hard to see whether attacking the article with the merciless sword of verifiability, and pruning just about everything from it, or just deleting and starting again is the better course of action. Uncle G 17:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider this of excellent encylopedic value. If I'm employing WP:IGNORE with this, well, attack away! If I have no sympathy here (I doubt there will be), then at least Merge to Stock character --Oakshade 03:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment - I did find an intereting list under "Types of Villians" here. It appears from a blog, but at least it's not an unknown concept. Another essay here. --Oakshade 03:35, 1 December 2006 (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.