Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George A. Romero's Living Dead series characters


 * 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 Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

George A. Romero&

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

This is some 78 kilobytes of pure plot. We already have articles fully describing these films and their significance, but this article does not add to them in any way. It is simply a catalog of events that happen to characters in the films. Delete per WP:PLOT. Tony Sidaway 20:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  22:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the characters appear in more than one film, so anything relevant should be covered in the film articles. No refs provided that might suggest further notability for any of these characters. This much plot summary is just obscene. PC78 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep  and conduct a cruftrectomy. I can't overstate the influence these films have had within the horror genre and upon video games and other media. The films (and thus characters) have been analyzed not only in dedicated books but in horror books in general. For instance discusses how the nuclear family, the loving couple and even a child, previously sacrosanct, are killed. It shows some of the historical significance of these characters. That's not a book about these films or even horror films, but it gives that much coverage. this book discusses the usage of black actors to portray heroes and describes how this was used in the films. There are several books detailing that particular subject. Here's another (massive) potential source, another example of some tidbits that could be used to treat the characters from NOTLD in an encyclopedic fashion, there are several others. In this case I think the article has good potential and is much preferable to split character articles, but less space needs to be given to also-ran characters (like the different zombies from Dawn) and it needs real-world info adding and citing. Someoneanother 16:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry peeps, went into head for the sources mode without checking the surrounding articles. I see the point about the article as it stands being of no use, but that's something that can be sorted out by editing - providing there's a clear path for improvement and a purpose for doing so. In this case, the bulk of the important details would be about Night, already an excellent featured article which has these details already. Expansion of them would have to come from careful research and analysis in order to avoid duplication, ditto a seperate character article. With that avenue closed we're left with three other films of decreasing significance which could be dealt with in their own articles. Dawn is a significant film in many respects, but less so in terms of characters, Day much less so. Land is of no real importance outside of being a Romero zombie flick, the characters are of no more import than in thousands of other films. Bearing that in mind, there doesn't seem to be a need for this article. Someoneanother 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep following Someoneanother's advice, for the reasons he gave, and congratulations on a good neologism. DGG (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Someone another on the films' influence. This is explained in the articles George A. Romero, Night of the Living Dead, # Dawn of the Dead (1978 film), Day of the Dead (film), and Land of the Dead, and Romero's seminal influence is further explained in articles about his earlier films such as The Crazies. I propose that we keep those articles (their value is not in doubt and they were never part of this deletion nomination).  I propose only that we delete the 78 kilobyte text dump in the page George A. Romero&, which does nothing useful. I've looked at that page and satisfied myself (and I hope you will also look at the page long enough to satisfy yourself), that the page is nothing except a very large copyright infringing heap of derived work from Romero's scripts.  At the same time I think the sources User:Someone another cites might be useful in augmenting existing articles and creating new ones.  But if you conduct a cruftectomy on this article you'll end up deleting the entire content. Not everything that some third party appends George A. Romero's name to is worthy of the man's name. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Someoneanother. Given the topic we can likely for most or all of these characters find real world analysis about the characters in question and their influence on other movie character depictions. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * correction - Huh? Someoneanother has decided to support deletion, not retention. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What Someone another is suggesting is, in effect, an entirely new article. If you cut out all the cruft from this article, there will be nothing left, so while I don't disagree with this argument, I also don't see it as an obstacle for deletion. PC78 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists, and because it has notability to a real-world audience and is consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Tony and Someoneanother; pointless and duplicate datadump. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  19:13, 20 February 2008 (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.