Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mad scientists

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. Sandstein 06:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of mad scientists

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the mad scientist is well-known cultural stereotype, and this list provides many examples. I'm surprised it's been nominated for deletion. It just needs tidying up - _{but when did mad scientists ever tidy up?} Totnesmartin 23:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Also suffers from POV problems per trying to define whether a scientist is "mad" or not. Otto4711 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-defined archetype. A messy list is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu

The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't someone change the title to "List of fictional mad scientists" pretty sharpish? Otherwise I'll be tempted to add an astrophysicist friend of mine to it. --Folantin 08:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the article survives, good idea - it was split from the original Mad scientist article, which still has a list of real ones. Totnesmartin 12:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Just deal with it. --Calton | Talk 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- The nom does give a rationale; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto4711 and rejecting the Wikilawyering of Docu & Psychonaut: got actual rationales? --Calton | Talk 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category, that's what categories are for. A conversion is no loss of information. >Radiant< 16:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have rebutted this 96% inaccurate observation here. AndyJones 12:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I and my Cyborg Monkey are proud, proud I say, to support the continued existence of this article. Georgewilliamherbert 01:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there ever was a list relevant to fiction, this is it. DGG 03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)03:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - needing tidying up is not an argument for deletion, and also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. Insanephantom (please comment on my Editor Review!) 12:37, 9 January 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.