Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats

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 11:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spoiled brats[edit]

Listcruft. —tregoweth (talk) 05:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic. Fireplace 05:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as the sourcing required is nowhere to be seen and it's arguably not notable. However, it does spin out of Spoiled brat which is a stock character and the overuse of this particular stock character is interesting. Open to persuasion. MLA 08:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Wikipedia is not paper. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does that apply? --Awiseman 15:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unlike lists of non-fictional people, lists of fictional people are far easier to be encylopedic. While for example a list of real-life eccentrics (deleted recently) isn't encyclopedic due to there not being reliable sources declaring particular people as "eccentric", in fiction eccentric characters are usually *intended* to be so. The same applies to spoiled brats in this case: thus such a list is verifiable. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's not necessarily easy to source as it's a list that could be open to interpretation and as it's a character trait rather than a physical feature it's going to have inherent subjectivity. If it can be made objective then I'd be happy to keep. MLA 13:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep in the context of it being spun out of Spoiled brat WilyD 13:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether someone is a spoiled brat or not is completely a matter of opinion. It's a pointless list and could really go on forever. --Awiseman 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. wikipediatrix 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Awiseman. --Astrokey44 16:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List without objective criteria. You could argue that the definition given in the article is an objective criterion. However, proper behavior and discipline vary across societies, so this list is not universally verifiable. Cdcon 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Completely based on a persons POV. Someone from a Metro area may say a fictional characters certain behavior is acceptable or 'not spoiled' while somone from a Rural area may say the behavior is 'spoiled'. Even the Objective criteria could be subject to POV. Discipline and behavior not only vary across societies, states, and even counties, but also between age groups. Someone who is 15 years of age may say certain behavior is completely within reason while someone who is +25 may disagree. --Bschott 17:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: there is no POV here at all. The "spoiled brat" is a perfectly well-defined character archetype. I defy you to find anybody, even a 15-year-old, who considers the likes of Dudley Dursley or Veruca Salt to behave "within reason". We are talking about listing fictional characters who were designed from the ground up to be as exaggeratedly spoiled and brattish as possible here, not about arbitrarily attacking random child characters that one happens not to like! — Haeleth Talk 19:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, what constitutes a "spoiled brat" is strictly, irrevocably, nothing but a matter of opinion. I think most kids in America are spoiled brats, but obviously, their parents would disagree with that assessment. (Would you consider all the Rugrats kids to be spoiled brats? I certainly would, even though Angelica is far more exaggerated about it than the others.) wikipediatrix 19:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about Lisa Simpson? She's on the list but I don't think she's a brat. It's arbitrary. --Awiseman 19:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. ALL children, fictional or otherwise, display "bratty" traits at one time or another - they're children. And the meaning of "spoiled" varies wildly depending on your financial/social class. wikipediatrix 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: POV. The reference to the Old Testament advice about sparing the rod is very POV (and now removed) 205.157.110.11 22:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IF there can be a verified definition of "spoiled brat" that all the other entries can tie into. Otherwise delete. 205.157.110.11 22:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would I keep List of Children? Sure. List of Fictional characters? iffy. Definitely not this one. As above, "spoiled brat" is POV. And this seems to fall somewhere between WP:CRUFT and WP:NOT. — MrDolomite | Talk 03:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — just seems too POV for Wikipedia American Patriot 1776 05:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to POV problems per above. --E ivind ^t ^@^c 05:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WilyD's argument is a good one and addresses the indiscriminate/WP:NOT issues, but the difficulty of determining who should be included per WP:V remains. Unverifiable and uncompletable I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, what a useless category. --Stlemur 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable, will just lead to arguments, listcruft Lurker ^talk 15:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to other issues raised, no evidence this will be a resource useful to other articles (spoiled brat) has a sufficiency of examples for its needs). - David Oberst 04:18, 13 August 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.