Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of female supervillains (3rd nomination)

List of female supervillains

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

I'm nominating this list for deletion as this is an unverifiable original research. Also, the term "supervillain" itself cannot be well-defined, which further supports the fact that it cannot be verified. The problem is here since 2007 (see the previous AfDs), therefore it is highly unlikely that this article will be fixed. Hence this article satisfies WP:DEL#REASONs #6,7. It also fails all five criteria of WP:GNG, especially "significance in coverage". Lastly, Wikipedia is not a publisher of fan inventions or directory. Therefore, it should be deleted. Forbidden User (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list article helps with navigation, showing people where to find similar articles they may be interested in. Everyone on the list is female and has a super power and is a villain, so its not original research. They are called this in their own articles and even featured in Category:Female supervillains already. The list would be more useful with additional information added for each entry, listing their super power, and when they debuted, and in what comic book. Dream Focus 19:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it make the group notable? Besides, every claim on "super power" and "villainity" needs to be sourced on the list, and I see none.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. As long as that information is in the article being linked to, its fine. Dream Focus 13:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it cites no RS to prove its notability, our deltion policy says we delete it — the MoS guideline cannot defend it.Forbidden User (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletion policy says we delete it if it is impossible to cite a RS to prove its notability. The lack of sources actually cited in the article is not a cause for deletion of the entire article. JulesH (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as complement to Category:Female supervillains per WP:CLN, and as navigational list per WP:LISTPURP. As Dream Focus explains above, the claim that it's unverifiable whether a character is 1) female and a 2) supervillan is simply nonsense, as the original sources almost always use the label of "superhero" or "supervillain". Citing to the previous AFDs is no help to the nominator, as both closed as "keep" and did not raise the same arguments so they are hardly evidence of an unresolved "problem" existing "since 2007". postdlf (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to say that the problem is not here in 2007, as the noms both raise the same problems I raise. Your "always" claim is unsupported as well. Anyway, WP:N is the relevant guideline here. Throwing others are not really useful.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Article provides no information beyond the information a category provides. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still cannot support the claim that it has a point.Forbidden User (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you consider it pointless or not is not relevant. Dream Focus 13:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it has no point, then it is meningless not to delete it. We're not stupid, it is common sense not to have pointless stuff.Forbidden User (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is a complementary navigational index. Plus it has the potential to be annotated and organized in different ways, which the category cannot. But I shouldn't have to tell you that if you've already read through WP:CLN, particularly WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable subject. Not redundant to a category, as the article includes information on publisher that would otherwise not be included in navigation. Could also be extended to include additional information (e.g. year of first appearance would be a useful addition IMO). JulesH (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]