316:. There's nothing unencyclopedic about a list, per se, nor about fictional characters, nor in fact about a list of fictional characters that meet some criterion. Of course, it can never be complete, but no article can ever be perfect; so what? The list contains valid information that's neutral, verifiable, and not original research (keeping in mind that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is . . . strongly encouraged"). That it may be of limited interest is irrelevant;
425:: so much of Knowledge (XXG) is pure pop culture, why target this topic? What's wrong with a list showing how a symbol such as the MOH has been appropriated and mediated in the culture? A list of (largely familiar) fictional recipients is as interesting to many readers as a list of (largely unknown) actual recipients.
148:
as unencyclopedic listcruft (which, as an aside, could never be considered comprehensive). I can't believe the reasons two people above have for keeping this article. An article being interesting or including a certain person (I could create an article called "list of people" and put
Raymond Shaw on
379:. Lists with well-specified criteria for inclusion are OK in my book. I'd only use 'incomplete'/'not possible to complete' as a reason to delete if the number of items was so vast that the list couldn't possibly be more than a random selection. I don't believe that's the case here. --
82:. It was interesting to read, from the perspective of a moviegoer. Does it need to be anything else? I don't think comprehensiveness is a reasonable test, even for lists. A scant few articles here feature all the information in existence about their topic.
279:
I like the idea of making it into a category, but most of the people on the list do not have their own pages. So keep it. It borders on listcruft in that the number of people interested in this is probably limited, but that's hard to quantify.
162:" and see if it goes up for deletion. I'm sorry- I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I do believe that everyone has their right to an opinion; still, the above reasons do not even qualify as "reasons" for voting keep. --
367:, although I would have no objections to the list being scrapped in favor of a category. Sorting fictional characters in this way is useful, although I think a category would be more useful than a list.
267:(actually would prefer it as a category, easier to make it comprehensive). "of no worthwhile use" is not a valid reason for deletion, and it seems to be an interesting thing to keep track of.
158:(Edit) In fact, how about this: I'm going to make a new article, and call it "A List of Fictional People which will be Interesting to Read and Include Characters from
196:- I don't see this really adding anything to WP. No good "keep" reasons yet - being "interesting to read" is not a valid reason, nor is the "Raymond Shaw" reason.
456:
444:
417:
401:
389:
371:
337:
308:
296:
284:
271:
259:
246:
233:
212:
200:
184:
166:
153:
140:
123:
109:
73:
57:
17:
229:
333:
96:
63:
171:
A list of fictional people interesting to read about is not a concrete topic; a list of fictional medal of honor winners
102:
474:
36:
292:, per the many good reasons above and the abject lack of any good reason (and yes, I did look at the article itself).
317:
242:
On one hand, I feel that lists are getting out of control. On the other, I've seen lists that are worse and kept.
208:
It's just not an encyclopedia article. It's just not, and it doesn't matter how interesting people think it is.
473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
180:
136:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
209:
90:
225:
149:
it, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic) does not mean it should be included in
Knowledge (XXG). --
329:
84:
176:
132:
384:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
440:
398:
357:
347:
221:
197:
368:
325:
321:
163:
150:
432:
413:
article which is now a featured article. Its still linked and provides good material. -
410:
281:
305:
256:
243:
120:
397:- if we need to compromise, I would vote in favor of a category instead of a list.
414:
380:
268:
70:
49:
436:
293:
453:
255:
on the other hand, making the world a better place begins somewhere.
175:
an actual subject, to movie buffs and those interested in the medal.
452:
although I don't find it really harmful, I see no point for it. --
467:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
346:, unmaintainable, and demeaning to actual MoH recipients. ---
320:
are also likely of limited interest. And as for notability,
69:
Article cannot be comprehensive and is of no worthwhile use
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
64:List of fictional Medal of Honor recipients
304:Pointless, random, unencyclopedic list.
131:It's got Raymond Shaw, so I'm happy.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
44:The result of the debate was
318:piezoelectric microbalances
494:
431:as original research and
409:: Started as part of the
470:Please do not modify it.
160:The Manchurian Candidate
58:14:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
457:02:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
445:00:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
418:20:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
402:19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
390:10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
372:10:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
338:03:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
309:02:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
297:02:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
285:01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
272:23:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
260:17:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
247:22:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
234:22:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
213:21:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
201:20:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
185:20:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
167:20:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
154:20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
141:20:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
124:20:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
110:19:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
74:19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
322:that doesn't worry me
350:
387:
342:
210:Brian G. Crawford
183:
139:
485:
472:
385:
179:
135:
108:
105:
99:
93:
87:
34:
493:
492:
488:
487:
486:
484:
483:
482:
481:
475:deletion review
468:
356:, as below. --
103:
97:
91:
85:
83:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
491:
489:
480:
479:
462:
460:
459:
447:
426:
420:
411:Medal of Honor
404:
392:
374:
362:
361:
360:
340:
311:
299:
287:
274:
262:
250:
240:very weak keep
236:
215:
203:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
177:CanadianCaesar
143:
133:CanadianCaesar
126:
113:
112:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
490:
478:
476:
471:
465:
464:
463:
458:
455:
451:
448:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
424:
421:
419:
416:
412:
408:
405:
403:
400:
396:
393:
391:
388:
386:(squirt ink?)
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
366:
363:
359:
355:
352:
351:
349:
345:
341:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
312:
310:
307:
303:
300:
298:
295:
291:
290:Strong Delete
288:
286:
283:
278:
275:
273:
270:
266:
263:
261:
258:
254:
251:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:per above. –
219:
216:
214:
211:
207:
204:
202:
199:
195:
192:
186:
182:
181:Et tu, Brute?
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
165:
161:
157:
156:
155:
152:
147:
146:Strong delete
144:
142:
138:
137:Et tu, Brute?
134:
130:
127:
125:
122:
118:
115:
114:
111:
106:
100:
94:
88:
81:
78:
77:
76:
75:
72:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
469:
466:
461:
449:
428:
422:
406:
394:
376:
364:
353:
343:
313:
301:
289:
276:
264:
252:
239:
238:
217:
205:
193:
172:
159:
145:
128:
116:
79:
68:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
450:Weak Delete
399:Wickethewok
222:Someguy0830
198:Wickethewok
369:NoIdeaNick
354:Categorise
326:Simetrical
164:Kicking222
151:Kicking222
119:per nom.
86:Aguerriero
54:Ταλκ το mε
433:listcruft
282:Joelmills
277:Weak keep
334:contribs
306:Eusebeus
257:Roodog2k
244:Roodog2k
230:contribs
121:Rklawton
415:Husnock
395:Comment
381:Squiddy
269:JoshuaZ
206:Delete.
50:Luigi30
437:Stifle
429:Delete
344:Delete
302:Delete
253:delete
218:Delete
194:Delete
117:Delete
294:Fluit
16:<
454:Arny
441:talk
423:Keep
407:Keep
377:Keep
365:Keep
330:talk
314:Keep
265:Keep
226:Talk
129:Keep
80:Keep
358:GWO
348:GWO
324:. —
101:) (
95:) (
443:)
435:.
383:|
336:)
332:•
280:--
232:)
228:|
173:is
71:Ed
56:)
48:.
439:(
328:(
224:(
107:)
104:ë
98:ć
92:ţ
89:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.