Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional burn victims

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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional burn victims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Arbitrary list: "This list encompasses notable fictional characters who have been burned by heat, ice, acid, or radiation, and may or may not have the physical scars to prove it." We don't even have a list of real-life burn victims (List of burn victims). (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While the criteria don't initially seem arbitrary, they certainly are. If we created the corresponding List of burn victims, virtually every biography would qualify if we could find a source mentioning the extrordinailly common burns everyone reading this has likely suffered at one point or another: sunburn, pizza blisters, etc. all qualify. No clear delimiter can be found, lest we reverse the "physical scars" criteria. Then we're left with defining "scars": if the skin breaks, there is a scar (though perhaps quite small). That lip burnt on hot coffee last winter left a scar. This might work as a real list of real people suffering third degree burns, another for acid burns, one fatal burns, etc. If someone wants to draw those lists up, I'd consider supporting them. This one, though, fails. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I imagine that such a list could use hospitalization in a burn unit as its defining boundary. I hate to think that people would hesitate on whether to create such a list because they were wrestling with the question of how to define the criteria. To all Wikipedia editors, I can only say, do not worry about what other people might think about your idea. As to the list here, however, it's the classic boring indiscriminate list of names of every character one can think of. There's no explanation for why any of them are on here, if anyone happened to be curious in the first place. As to the ones who might pass the "everybody knows that" standard, I have my doubts. I think that Lex Luthor is on here on the assumption that his hair burned off, but I think that most of the mythical accounts are that he fell victim to a chemical accident that caused permanent baldness. Others, such as Freddie Krueger, on here under the duh standard-- except that it's not that obvious to anyone who is unfamiliar with the Nightmare on Elm Street films. Hence, I'm inclined to say "delete with fire". Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Criterion is too nebulous and non-notable for a meaningful list. What next, "List of fictional assault victims"? "List of fictional domestic accident victims"? There's a near-infinite list of lists we could make up like this. -- Boing! said Zebedee 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- SummerPhD has done an excellent job of summarizing the problems with this article. In my opinion, they cannot be overcome so the article should be deleted. Reyk _YO! 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a pretty random topic for a list. only becomes meaningful if adding equally spurious lists such as "people run over in fiction", "people drowned in fiction" etc. all pretty pointless. Some amusement value for the list-obsessed but not a serious encyclopaedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 20:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above. On a side note, how could the creator have not mentioned Two-Face? Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2010 (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.