Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tragic villain

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 keep. W.marsh 15:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic villain[edit]

Unsourced dicdef and list that is purely original research. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 18:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some effort is put in to save it - It has potential, but is not worth keeping as is. Artw 19:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It could be merged into the "tragic hero" article? Failing that then, keep as there probably should be an article on this archetype and, as you said, it has potential. The list should definitely be abridged or removed entirely. --Bisected8 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Which examples from the list should be kept? I think only about 10 examples, and preferably a balance of traditional villains, comic book villains, and other interesting twists. I'm in favor of keeping Lex Luthor, as he ties into the only reference this page has, the Penguin of Batman Returns, The Phantom of the Opera, and Darth Vader as they are all clear example from different sources.
- Where are those sources, then? The current reference does not define what a "tragic villain" is, so using it as the support for the entire article is poor form. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 23:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new reference has been added which is far more scholary. ZimmerBarnes 07:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some student's self-hosted essay is not "scholary" nor is it a reliable source. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 13:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find a bunch of sources in a few minutes. I added the first 4 I found. It seems to be a classic literary concept, and there's tons of stuff on the web about it. I agree that the list should only have TVils that are referenced, and right now, it does. - Peregrine Fisher 23:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per addition of references and WP:NOT#PAPER. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 23:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What does Not Paper have to do with anything? ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not argue with me. Glad we settled that. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 11:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I assume you have no solid reasoning, nor explanation, for your vote, then. The purpose of AfD is discussion. If you're not willing to discuss or even explain your opinion, then please don't vote. ' 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait.. you say vote.. then you say discussion.. but then you say it's a vote again? Well sorry to burst your bubble but it isn't a vote in the slightest. I've provided solid reasoning (something which you've failed to do) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, God forbid I stick to simple terms that actually mean what I'm talking about. Would you prefer I used halfassed terms like "input" instead of "vote"? Regardless, the exact words that I use is quite irrelevant. Solid reasoning? I asked you to explain your reasoning and I got this irrelevant "DONT ARGUE WIT ME!" message. I know you guys like to play the "I'm rubber and you're glue" shtick, but could you please actually respond to my criticism instead of applying my criticism to me? ' 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an archetype, that's original research. Delete and redirect to Villain, the list is arbirary and not particularly useful. >Radiant< 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles quite small now, perhaps it should just be merged into Villain or Tragic Hero?--Bisected8 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep Richard III and Shylock (WP deletionists ::wink::) are Shakespearean examples that could be added. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Killerman2 09:51, 17 February 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.