Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. I would however encourage anyone considering renomination to bear in mind that this AfD garnered significant participation with sharply divided opinions. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kill Bill characters[edit]

List of Kill Bill characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article consists almost entirely of fancruft with few sources. Very little of the information is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The Kill Bill series only comprises two films; information about its characters can be sufficiently covered in the articles for those films. Popcornduff (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems fine.Mishigas (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning? Popcornduff (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
looks like a good amount of work went into this article. If there aren't individual articles for the films listing characters, probably not duplicative. I couldn't really read the whole thing, but it looked ok. If you had to write a book report on this film, this article would be useful. Remember that Wikipedia's core audience is college students desperately trying to write essays with only 12 hours to go, and no time to read the book or watch the film themselves. Let's not let them down. Mishigas (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nom, it's a lot of fancruft, with little or no sourcing and no real-world notability. It's a sneaky way of adding lots of trivia for every (minor) character in the film without bloating the main article. Speaking of which, the articles for the films contain all the salient character points, making this redudant. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is my position. Kill Bill is just two movies. We don't need an entire article dedicated to its characters when we can cover that perfectly well in the film articles. We also have a Kill Bill article that covers the series, where the information could go instead, maybe. (Though frankly I'm not sure that Kill Bill series page is justified either, but that's a matter for another AfD.) Popcornduff (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that you have failed to advance an effective nomination: You can't start an AfD and suggest that the article be merged. See WP:SK Clause #1. See WP:PM for how to actually propose what you're suggesting. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But I haven't suggested the article be merged - almost everything on it right now is uncited fancruft. There's nothing to merge. Popcornduff (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC) edit: To clarify, when I wrote "this is my position", I meant I agreed with the rationale above. I didn't mean we should merge instead of delete. Apologies. Popcornduff (talk) 07:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't exactly agree with a rationale for a merge and then turn around and say delete: They're different outcomes for different situations, and a rationale for one will almost never support the other outcome. Further, you now argue that this article should be deleted based on its current state, rather than its potential, contra WP:NOTCLEANUP. Fundamentally, the reason this should be one or more standalone articles is that there is sufficient independent RS critical commentary on the characters (rather than just the films) that individual character articles could be created which would be verifiable, notable, and not run afoul of any NOT criteria. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I started this AFD with the arguments that we don't need an article for these characters (ie there's no reason to clean it up), and that the current version of the article has nothing of value on it (ie nothing worth merging). Whether those arguments hold weight is a separate issue, but I'd at least like to deflect accusations of shifting goalposts, like this: "You now argue that this article should be deleted based on its current state, rather than its potential" - No I don't! I'm saying it has no potential and nothing here is worth merging. I might be wrong on that, but I haven't "turned around" on anything, I haven't changed my arguments, and I think Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus's comment is consistent with those arguments. Popcornduff (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)-[reply]
So, now that I have demonstrated (via the links above, a mere sampling of the critical commentary easily available) that there exists plenty of critical commentary on these characters, are you interested in revising your nomination statement or striking it entirely? I am almost but not quite completely unconcerned with the current state of the article, as are our policies: whether it has the potential to grow into a decent article is the governing question. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, nobody but you agrees that your sources demonstrate anything. They are not a critical commentary on the characters, but on the series itself. Big difference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is no. Reviewing the sources you provide, there seems to be a lot of critical and theoretical discussion of the Kill Bill movies, all of which could be added to the film pages, but I see nothing here to demonstrate the need for a page specifically about its characters. The exception is perhaps for the Bride, the protagonist, but that's not what this page is doing. Popcornduff (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens, please don't badger people with requests that are not part of the policy. There is no requirement of discusisng merger before deletion if one determines there is nothing to merge. Popcornduff says this is fancruft, or OR, and if this is what he believes (and I mostly agree with him) there is nothing to merge. Fancruft belongs on wikias, not Wikipedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So wait... is there, or is there not something to merge? You said merge. He said you were right. I said that's not consistent. Now you say he's right. I'm sorry if it looks like to you like I'm badgering nominators when I'm trying to get a straight answer so I can detail why the associated underlying policy does or does not apply in the way the nominator suggests. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sure we can rescue a few sentences, at least. So there is a bit of content to merge. Fancruftish, but that's plot summary in most cases anyway. So yes, there's a bit we can merge, but at the same time if this is deleted, I don't think we would lose much. Honestly, if I want to read about KB characters, I'd go to [1], where I'd expect most fans to go to anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. No critical analysis or evaluations, just in-world retelling of plot. Not suitable for encyclopedia. Renata (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are not enough sources detailing real world information to justify the amount of plot in the article. It is currently just an unnecessary, overly in-depth plot summary with no justification. It does not act as a companion article to contain proper information that otherwise would not fit, but instead acts as a dumping ground for information that is more suited to Wikia. The above sources do not show any potential for improvement of this topic. TTN (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as a major film, we do want information on the characters, and most of it can be sourced from the film itself. Since the work is made up of two closely connected parts, it makes sense to put this all in one place. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy 19:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean it up extensively. Add more citations, fix any grammatical or spelling errors, and put some more emphasis on the notability and impact of the characters in pop culture rather than simply engaging in "fancruft". No need to delete, but a large need for cleanup. –Matthew - (talk) 23:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – While I certainly understand arguments from the delete and/or merge camps, it seems like there's enough in this list article that can be retained with a careful rework, sifting out the fluff and trivia that has been a major concern. Then if the remaining content is minuscule in comparison, we can propose a merger into one or both of the film articles. As it stands now, a merger isn't realistic without an idea of what will be merged. Also, I've always felt that deletion requires a very strong case, as opposed to retention which only requires a reasonable doubt that valid content will be lost. Seems like the latter has more justification at this juncture. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTPLOT. It is basically a page of fictional character biographies and per WP:JUSTPLOT Wikipedia should only be providing a description of fictional works to the extent it supports real-world commentary. Betty Logan (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill the list. There's nothing of any importance here that isn't already in the two movie articles. The rest is details that someone couldn't stuff into the limited-length synopses. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of useful content here if this is cleaned up significantly. This was a significant film with a major fan following, and this sort of detail is what is needed in the world's pre-eminent encyclopedia. Agree that there is way too much "fancruft", but this can be deleted. 173.239.207.50 (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Double Keep with a lethal snake-bite cherry on top, seriously?? An article like this is actually being considered for deletion? It's Kill Bill for Pai Mei's sake, not some third-rate dime-a-dozen film forgotten within weeks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have done some edits on the page, but it seems most of the material is fine and advances the understanding of the film. If this page, which averages well over 500 views a day, were to be thrown out with tomorrow's Wikipedia trash, then many of the characters would be worthy of their own pages - so keeping them contained in this one serves the purpose of such a well viewed, read, and used on a daily basis character-page. While I've been doing an edit run through the Kill Bill pages (which is how I found this deletion nom) I've seen dozens of links to this page. That shows its usefulness, its fully-realized development, and its importance to Wikipedia's Kill Bill collection (as an important film, would like to note that Roger Ebert called it the best film of the decade). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the Kill Bill films is not in question. Can you produce reliable sources demonstrating that the characters are notable independently of the two Kill Bill films? Popcornduff (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Characters are notable for the films, television shows, theatrical productions, or other formats in which they appear, that's why there are 'Lists of characters'. There are hundreds if not thousands of these lists presented on Wikipedia, all with their primary topic being a particular production. If this fine Kill Bill character page is removed from Wikipedia then all the others should be tossed out with the remaining bathwater. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects should only have their own pages when sources demonstrate they are independently notable. Can you provide these? As for your other argument, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Popcornduff (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then please put all of the other 'List of character' pages up for deletion. My "argument" includes WP:COMMONSENSE. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe you didn't read WP:OTHERSTUFF. "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not ... So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet. " Popcornduff (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFF is a good argument when the "other" in "other stuff" is a single article, or perhaps a handful. Character lists for fictional franchises are everywhere (well, in fictional franchises, at any rate) in Wikipedia, and Kill Bill is not a particularly bad or exceptional case of one. Sure, it's two movies, but that doesn't mean a character list is inappropriate. Look for List of X characters where X is any sort of a fictional franchise, and you'll find something--maybe a disambiguation, maybe a redirect, maybe a list like this. So yes, there is a time and place for an OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:SSEFAR is a part of that same essay. Jclemens (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of characters are justified for franchises with several instalments and where sources 1) show that the characters are notable independently of the franchise and 2) provide enough material to justify their own page. Examples of this include franchises like Harry Potter, Star Wars, and so on. Kill Bill, as I have argued already, doesn't meet those criteria. There are only two films (which are kind of one film split in two anyway) and no one has yet provided the required sources. The fact that Wikipedia almost certainly has other similar unjustified articles has nothing to do with the issue at hand. I mean, sure, go ahead and nominate those pages for deletion too, where you find them. But this one's about Kill Bill. Popcornduff (talk) 07:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge concise versions of character descriptions to Kill Bill. While I agree that the films have received extensive academic coverage (as I researched and listed at Talk:Kill Bill/references years ago), this does not necessarily automatically permit a list article for the characters. The problem is that this list article entirely violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF from the get-go. Multiple film series articles have actor/role sections indicating film appearances, and Kill Bill is no exception. I see no problem with a little more detail about each fictional character, but if we were to trim this list (and it would be truly decimated), it would fit comfortably at the film series article. The academic coverage does not directly prove that a list of characters would be notable. It proves that Analysis of Kill Bill could be notable because that scope is self-evident. (Though such content, if minimal at first, would warrant being started at the main article and be split. This outgrowth is what I refer to next.) We cannot tell from looking at the possible references that coverage can be written to talk about each character distinctly. How do we know whether or not most of the analysis requires being under a section heading broader than one character's section heading (or listing)? To create an article about a fictional character, it is possible to pull together details and have a write-up that, while somewhat redundant to content elsewhere, can stand distinctly. However, a case has to be made through active editing and not presumed. There needs to be reliably sourced and detailed distinct write-ups of multiple characters to warrant splitting from Kill Bill as not to overwhelm it. That would be the proper encyclopedic outgrowth for certain topics that exist under the notability umbrella of the broader topics (the films themselves). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your key point is ...but if we were to trim this list (and it would be truly decimated). Why would we want to decimate this page, which has had 52,000 views in the past 90 days without a complaint, and with probably most readers enjoying it? I've never read it before, did an edit run, and enjoyed the page very much, it is very informative. It augments this highly acclaimed film in a nice way. Why not just do the radical thing here, the WP:COMMONSENSE thing, and leave it alone and move on. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. On Wikipedia, We don't write in-universe content about fiction at length. We write enough in-universe content to complement the out-of-universe content about said fiction. How about linking to Kill Bill Wiki for that amount of in-universe content? Not sure if it can meet EL standards, though. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the closer. Please consider calling this page saved by WP:COMMONSENSE. I don't know how often closers use the WP:COMMONSENSE option, which trumps all other guidelines and rules, but this seems a good candidate. There are hundreds of lists like this here, I come across them probably on a daily or semi-daily basis, so why evict one which adds extensive detail to our Kill Bill pages. This list is very good (please read it), informative, and likely one of Wikipedia's most popular character lists with over 500 readers a day. Yes, WP:ILIKEIT, and I'd bet thousands of readers have liked it in the past week alone. Kill Bill is the type of long and acclaimed film which has so many multiple characters and stories, so many inter-character patterns, and is done in such a way that each character comes with a backstory which the film succeeds in bringing out and which is caught very well in this character list. Again, please read it, and see for yourself that the thing holds the readers attention. Fancruft it may be on some level, but look at the amount of fans (i.e. Encyclopedia readers) it attracts and educates every day! That's a main reason an encyclopedia like ours exists, to give the readers what they come looking for, and this article does that well. Please consider saving it exactly as is, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is not "very good" in the slightest. There is barely any out-of-universe content about the fictional characters. I could understanding arguing to keep the list in a more trimmed form, but nothing justifies the excessive in-universe content that goes against WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I enjoyed the entire article, and learned a lot about this film. From my point of view, trimming much would only hurt the page and lessen its content, and deleting it makes no sense in terms of its long-term stability and popularity. So my request to save it through WP:COMMONSENSE stands. There are hundreds of pages worse than this in lists and minor articles, and this one is a popular and productive page. To throw rules and guidelines at it just to erase it from the encyclopedia is choosing one popular page out of many poorly read character pages, and I don't understand why editors would want to delete or even merge it. As mentioned, it has many links to it, which likely accounts for much of the traffic. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Without context, the write-up is fine. With context, it is simply not suitable for Wikipedia. We are supposed to write about works of fiction from a real-world perspective. This is the equivalent of a film article having the same setup: 5,000 words of plot detail and barely anything else. (Whereas the film is more readily established as a directly notable topic per reviews and similar coverage about it.) Assuming the status quo, cleanup would be warranted regardless. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:39, 22 June 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Kill_Bill_characters&oldid=1148110932"