Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deadly Viper Assassination Squad


 * 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. Lack of independent notability. There's no bar to creating a redirect, but there wasn't really a consensus for one in the discussion, so I leave that for interested editors. RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Deadly Viper Assassination Squad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Almost entirely composed of fancruft - original research and extensive plot description, with almost no out-of-universe coverage and no demonstration of notability.

This nom follows the deletion of two other articles connected to Kill Bill - see Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination) and Articles_for_deletion/Earl_and_Edgar_McGraw. All the characters covered in this article were also covered in List of Kill Bill characters, which was deleted for lack of notability. Popcornduff (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Popcornduff (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable -- a list of sources follows. The following policies therefore indicate that the topic should not be deleted:  WP:ATD; WP:CENSOR; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Warrior Women: Gender, Race, and the Transnational Chinese Action Star
 * Hetero: Queering Representations of Straightness
 * Mirror Images: Popular Culture and Education
 * Movie Greats: A Critical Study of Classic Cinema
 * Race on the QT: Blackness and the Films of Quentin Tarantino 
 * How to Analyze the Films of Quentin Tarantino
 * Mommy Angst: Motherhood in American Popular Culture
 * Movies and the Meaning of Life: Philosophers Take on Hollywood
 * Super Bitches and Action Babes: The Female Hero in Popular Cinema, 1970-2006
 * The Hollywood War Machine: U.S. militarism and popular culture
 * Quentin Tarantino and Philosophy
 * The Aesthetics of Violence in Contemporary Media
 * The Modern Amazons: Warrior Women On-Screen


 * In my view, as with the Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination) discussion, these sources do not provide enough specific focus on the article subject to warrant an article. They mainly relate to the Kill Bill films generally and the Bride character, both of which already have articles. Popcornduff (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Such sources may be browsed by using the Google Books link above. The first of them is Education and Popular Culture: Chiasmatic Reflections in Almodovar's Bad Education and Tarantino's Kill Bill which has two solid paragraphs specifically about the topic saying things like "The Deadly Viper Assassination Squad is indeed a clan; abbreviating their titles as "DiVAS" iplies that they are a group of flamboyant females.  The DiVAS are an allusion to a mixture of woman, snakes, temptation...".  This clearly passes WP:SIGCOV in every way and there's plenty more material like this in the other sources.  The source is not yet used in the article but it doesn't have to be per WP:NEXIST which states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article."  There's not the slightest case for deletion as all our guidelines and policies indicate otherwise.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore List of Kill Bill characters too. Particularly as this seems to be a single-handed war of attrition by one editor, nominating individual articles one-by-one until there are none left.
 * This is not a minor film. This is Hollywood A-list stuff: for the criticial reception, for the popular revenue, for the director, for the cast. This is as big as films get. It is unbelievable to claim that "this cannot be sourced" and complaints of "fancruft" are just meaningless handwaves at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a shameful series of deletions and they are damaging to the encylopedia overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I generally ignore accusations of bad-faith editing, but I feel I ought to respond to this. I have nominated these articles for deletion as part of a general effort to clean up Tarantino-related articles, which I have worked on here and there for years. This is not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; I have given rationales for why I think the articles don't cut the mustard, and I think those rationales are clear and based on Wikipedia policy, not "useless handwaves". I am, at all times, attempting to improve the encyclopaedia, and I don't feel very ashamed of it. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per his usual MO of just spamming useless references, I'm sure I can discount literally all of those sources as nonsense without looking at them. I doubt they are mentioned in any capacity worth including in the article. The individual characters and the group don't have anything worthwhile to discuss. This is best left to a Fandom wiki. TTN (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So you haven't even looked at the sources, but you reject them anyway, with an attack on the editor bringing them? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he is a completely disingenuous inclusionist who blatantly ignores "non-trivial coverage" to the point of ridiculousness. I can't take any source he produces in good faith. TTN (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Says the obvious bad faith dishonest deletionist troll... --24.101.156.239 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete as a topic unproven to warrant being standalone and apart from the film articles. The films are the notable topics, and for elements of the film to be separated out, these elements need to be decisively highlighted as standout and/or have so many different details that content has to be split out. I suggest having a Kill Bill article that can combine highlights from both films and where a cross-film list of characters can be had. If that list gets long enough with coverage from secondary sources, for a character, a group of characters, or a significant portion of all characters, then there could be an standalone article split off. There is a lot of coverage about Kill Bill that makes it fairly likely that this is possible, but the work needs to be done to show that there is something that can be split out. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Erik. The movies are undoubtedly notable, but there is nothing to support the independent notability of this spinoff article's subject.  While just searching for the title of the group certainly comes up with plenty of hits, as demonstrated above, actually looking through them shows that they pretty much fall into two categories - those that are talk about the group only in terms of plot summary (which is already covered in depth in the articles of the two films), and those that mention them briefly while talking in-depth about Beatrix Kiddo (who is notable, and as such, has a full article that can probably be expanded substantially with some of these books).  None of them, however, demonstrate that the group can be discussed in any meaningful way that requires an independent article, when all of the information is already included, and much better placed, in the articles on the films.  Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:JUSTPLOT. The article does not support any secondary commentary, and contains no evidence that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. The content is simply not encyclopedic. Betty Logan (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. The article is just plot with a bit of trivia tacked on at the end, there is no commentary and nothing to suggest independent notability for this particular element of the film. PC78 (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep due to lack of any actual reason to delete. Clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  --24.101.156.239 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominator quoted a policy and guideline that he believes the article violates. That is TWO clear reasons to delete. He may well be incorrect in the conclusions he has arrived but it is factually wrong to say there is a "lack of any actual reason to delete". Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't actually violate those, there is no reason to delete this article. Someone can seriously believe he is a banana, but it doesn't make it so.  --24.101.156.239 (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That would still make it not WP:IDONTLIKEIT - your, somewhat dubious, explanation and that accusation can't co-exist. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It concerns something that appears in two major films that have been seen by millions of people around the world and that has been written about in secondary sources. By any logical standard, this topic is notable and verifiable.  There is no benefit to this site or to anyone by deleting this information.  Conversely, having this content benefits those readers interested in learning more about this notable topic.  --24.101.156.239 (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk YO! 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it merely means that the films are notable. I does not mean that individual plot elements are notable in and of themselves, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT, if we're just going to cite guidelines and essays. PC78 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Characters of films can also be notable in their on right. These characters are spoofed on things like Robot Chicken even.  You can also buy shirts of them (do a Google search).  "It's not useful to me personally" and "I don't personally like it" are not a valid reason for deletion.  --24.101.156.239 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)  Sockpuppet of permabanned troll. Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 06:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of those have been cited as reasons for deletion in this discussion. PC78 (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It should probably be noted that the above IP user has already been put on a ban for some ridiculous shenanigans in AFDs, and can probably be safely disregarded. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed, and with a sockpuppet investigation to boot. PC78 (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Minor fictional characters in Tarantino film. No evidence that anything can be said about them outside of in-universe plot summary. I would also encourage the closer to trout Andrew Davidson for what was obviously a rudimentary GBooks search for the article title and then copy-pasting a bunch of random book titles that came up, with no effort to figure out what was in those books that could be used to build an article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I always dislike voting for the deletion of an article, particularly for one on a fictional character or in this case, a set of fictional characters. However, I am not convinced that the characters as a group have enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I do appreciate the sources listed by Andrew Davidson, but I am not fully convinced that they are enough. They do refer this squad somewhat, but I am less than certain. I could see those sources being beneficial to the article for The Bride (Kill Bill), and on a somewhat related note, I could possibly see characters like O-Ren Ishii and Elle Driver getting independent articles. I do not think a redirect would be particularly helpful as I am not sure anyone will type this full phrase out in the search box/bar. Again, I appreciate Andrew Davidson's comments and I personally love fictional character articles, but for me, I am leaning toward delete. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, insufficiently notable to stand on its own as an article. An example of fancruft. I'm not even going to bother addressing the supposed sources, as it's now a case of "the boy who cried KEEP!" and I can assume they are extremely low quality ones.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Kill Bill: Volume 1. It's a major fictional element mentioned in the article as a major part in the film, so I'm sure they will. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I would not be opposed to a redirect. The group is also mentioned in the article for Kill Bill: Volume 2. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:FICTION says that fictional characters must meet WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - no evidence of notability established in this article, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.