Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final girl


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. NAC. JulesH (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Final girl

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article exists solely to promote a nonnotable term by a single author. Author already has her own article, and this article should redirect to it or be completely deleted. The only references in this article are: an extremely brief mention in a book (fails the "nontrivial" part in establishing notability), an online website essay that fails WP:RS criteria, and another single page reference in a book (again, failing the "nontrivial" aspect). Site seems to exist so fans can make a list of horror films they like that have "final girls" -- which is original research, especially considering that the author who came up with the term says that the "final girl" doesn't have to be a girl or at the finale of the movie. Whole existence of article basically pushing the POV of this author as if the topic warrants special attention outside of just that one author's theory, which is a violation of WP:UNDUE. DreamGuy (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not seeing sourcing problems on the scale that DreamGuy implies, and if they were there then the solution would be to add more refs rather than delete. It's certainly a phenomens that's had a fair bit of discussion, and TBH I'm a bit suprised that Men, Women and Chain Saws itself doesn't have it's own entry. Artw (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - We certainly should keep this article. The solution to a sourcing issue would be simply more sources and content.  The article is about an important topic in horror films and feminist film theory.  If anything, I'd like to see the article kept and greatly expanded upon.  As to the list of films, I don't have a problem with it as long as it is kept trim, and used as a means of a jumping off point for further reading. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Basis of deletion claim that only one author uses the term is false. Check out Google Scholar Search--Larrybob (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G at Articles_for_deletion/List_of_films_featuring_a_final_girl also pointed to some sources. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would've been helpful to know before I started researching. Anyway, I think I added at least one of those sources on my own. I personally don't like the table, for reasons which Uncle G points out in the discussion you linked to, but I was just trying to establish notability for purposes of this AfD. Dancter (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I expected to see a bunch of WP:OR and I found a well-written and well-researched article. § FreeRangeFrog 00:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources in the article for the moment, and quite a few more available, as shown above. Another example of  carelessness in nominating for deletion without actually checking for references.DGG (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reynold Humphries (a former film studies professor at the University of Lille, certainly qualified to comment on the matter) wrote that the final girl is "one of the central notions in contemporary theoretical approaches to the modern horror film." In addition to the several editors here and elsewhere vouching for its notability and the multiple references available (many of which are several pages long), I don't know what else one needs. Of course the article needs improvement, but deleting or redirecting to a short five-sentence stub article is not a helpful way to deal with it. Dancter (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Need I voice an opinion? &#9786;  It should be pretty clear from what I wrote in the other AFD discussion that I'm in agreement with 66.191.19.68 on the subject of expanding this article to include more than just Clover's views.  Applause to Dancter for working on it.  Uncle G (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to look up the Cornea book after discovering your comment in the other AfD, but don't have the same access to book sources that you do, so I'm glad that you added that to the article. Dancter (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find that surprising. From AFD discussions in the past I know that, for example, Google Books is censored in my part of the world compared to some other parts of the world, with other editors reporting search results that include things that I simply don't see from here.  And I have no privileged access to libraries and suchlike.  My experience is that I actually have less access to such things than many Wikipedia editors.  Uncle G (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm just not fully aware of what's available to me. I've pretty much relied on web searches. Dancter (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.