Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional salespeople

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. Sandstein 07:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional salespeople[edit]

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

I'm nominating this at AFD because the subject list of fictional salespeople is non-notable. I highly double you will find significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. As such it fails WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's just an index of notable fictional characters by their occupation; see Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation for others. This shouldn't be controversial. The "subject" "list of fictional salespeople" doesn't have to be notable for the list to be valid, because lists do not have to be notable as lists. As an occupation in fiction, sales is a common choice to depict mundane or desperate lives (e.g., Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, Al Bundy in Married...with Children, any of the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross). Which some might characterize as an argument instead for some kind of salesmen in fiction article (maybe that should also exist), but as long as we have articles on notable fictional characters, indexing them by their depicted occupation is a perfectly reasonable use of lists, particularly for occupations that have been significant themes in fiction. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). There has been a great deal of discussion of this in the past, most substantively on 3 Jan 2007, when lists of fictional psychiatrists, witches, doctors, British Prime Ministers, and postal employees were retained, though the List of fictional xenoarchaeologists was deleted. I know about [[OTHERSTUFF...]], but believe that the reasons advanced there apply here as well. I would also like to quote AndyJones:

Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. And now that I've got to the bottom of this list, may I just add how downright angry I am that some <personal attack removed> could possibly look at the VAST amount of mostly good quality work done by literally hundreds of wikipedians in the articles covered by this mass nomination, then could demonstrate so much contempt for them, and for the project, that he or she would even think of attempting to destroy it all.

Ma^t_chups 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too doubt that any 'List of xxx' will attract much in the way of ghits as such. It does depend on the notability of xxx. And as xxx = sales people here, it should stay. There are plenty more that can be found, and there's enough as it stands for a starter. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Matchup (article creator), and whatever that Likely / Previous Outcomes page is called. Anarchangel (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. You are thinking of WP:Common outcomes, where it says "Lists and categories have different uses, and lists nominated for deletion because they have overlapping categories are often kept." and "Lists are generally kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A category is infeasible here, as many of the salespeople on the list do not have their own articles. Not because they're not notable, but because their existence is so closely linked to the works of fiction in which they appear that there is no point in giving them independent articles. Ma^t_chups 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too broad of a criteria for inclusion leads to sloppy and ill-defined lists, per WP:SALAT. Just because all of the characters on the list are notable doesn't mean that their intersection as fictional salespeople is notable. Them From Space 03:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WP:SALAT's statement that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." But that is an argument only for good management of the article, not for deletion. I appreciate your concern for its quality, but believe that with only thirteen entries, it is not yet ready for any form of subdivision. Ma^t_chups 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SALAT is correct that lists that are too broad in scope lead to ill-defined lists and are a sign of an indiscriminate grouping, which is what wikipedia is not. Just for example, many sitcoms have storylines where a character undertakes to sell something in some sort of scheme. Should they be in this list? Lots of characters in movies, books, and television will interact with a salesperson where little more is known than their name and what they sell. Should they be in this list? It's too indiscriminate. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is absolutely no reason to delete this article, and I really don't understand people's arguments for doing so. It's an excellent companion to the several dozen similar articles found at "Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation", and "salespeople" is no more "general or broad in scope" than any of the other occupations listed there. Although less than a week-old, this list is a good solid beginning, and many more names could be added to it (I just added two myself). --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2011 (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.