Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional impostors

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional impostors[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is simply too broad of a list, and is almost entirely original research, as evidenced by the fact only one entry has a reference. Pretending to be someone you are not has been used in thousands of fictional works, including pretty much all soap operas and sitcoms. This seems to me as something that would be better as a category than a list article. (and yes, technically, I created this page, but that was a split from the main article list of impostors done in the interest of just getting all this unsourced content out of there. ) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If too broad, narrow into subsets. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But not because I don't think that a list of fictional impostors can be made. Splitting it off was simply the incorrect thing to do here - it should have been pruned in the original article instead. The list should be returned to the original article but significantly shortened to only the notable impostors. In conclusion, this article is sus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, Television, Games, and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too common in fiction, especially for characters who are shapeshifters, undercover workers, or confidence tricksters. Also of note is that all the entries are works instead of characters, possibly because some of these works feature more than one imposter. The list has essentially no mergeable content due to lack of sources. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, might as well be “list of characters by common plot device exemplified by them”. Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Dronebogus (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not usually one to buy the argument nom advances, but in most of those cases, there is a reasonably well identified list. Does this list need to include Eddie Murphy's character in Trading Places? Both characters from The Prince and the Pauper? I think that the definition of an 'impostor' is untenably wide to include in one list, as LaundryPizza03 insinuates. Jclemens (talk) 05:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are some sources, but it is unclear what is in them. Scope and definition is a problme. Impostor redirects to List of impostors which does not contain referenced definition, so WP:OR seems like a problem for both lists. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively back to List of fictional impostors and redirect. First, if we have a list of impostors, I don't see why a List of fictional impostors should not be feasible. I do see the problem of original research in this case, so I'd suggest to insist on having secondary source which call the fictional character an impostor. This avoids both trivial entries and entries where being an impostor is not of importance for the character. I have added such sources for Felix Krull and Tom Ripley as examples. And if the topic still get's too broad, let's subdivide it as suggested by Hyperbolick and WP:SPLIT. The topic of "fictional impostors" certainly is notable, as can already be seen in the secondary sources present, so WP:LISTN is fullfilled in our case here. Daranios (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Imposter may mean many things. So, there are imposters who pretend to be a particular person, and there are imposters who pretend to be a particular profession, like a doctor or a firefighter. Would think these different kinds of situations would take different kinds of lists. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too broad and/or vague to be of use. Llwyld (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as too broad. A significant percentage of crime films and pretty much all spy films would qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creating more narrowly defined lists with similar themes per Hyperbolick may be a workable idea, but I doubt this list can meet the requirements of the WP:NLIST guideline. Haleth (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haleth: I can understand concerns about how to properly demarkate the topic, but I think it is not correct that this fails WP:NLIST: Just have a look at the two academic publications currently in the list: A book chapter and a paper, both dedicated to the topic of fictional impostors, i.e. the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources! Daranios (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an indiscriminate list of vaguely related things. Honestly, it is a slightly worse version of a TV Tropes entry. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:36, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 21:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. The essay WP:CARGO has it right—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. Moreover, the scope issues brought up above alone make this untenable as a list. That being said, it might be possible to create a proper, encyclopaedic prose article about the topic based on WP:Reliable sources about the topic itself. None of the current content would be of any use for that, however, so there's no point in retaining this version. TompaDompa (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2022 (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.