Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gremlins


 * 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. Unreferenced OR. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Gremlins

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article details contain poorly-written original research and character synthesis. Many of the Gremlins are not specifically named within the films and instead have been given names based upon appearances. The film articles, Gremlins and Gremlins 2: The New Batch, already cover the pertinent details described in this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Sottolacqua (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Sottolacqua's reasoning. This article violates WP:NOR and the two film articles cover them sufficiently. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge the information that does not violate WP:NOR into the article about the movie that the information is pertinent to. If it violates WP:NOR that information should not be merged and the article deleted. Spidey  104 contribs 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Part of the compromise in Wikipedia's gradual move from away from its childhood days of having separate elaborate articles for every TV, movie or comic book character was that these would be consolidated into more compact articles. We still have some residuals from those early days Articles for deletion/Penny Plunderer being the perfect example of insistence that a minor fictional character should have his own biography.  While I wouldn't support individual articles about any Gremlins, Pokemons, Care Bears, Smurfs, Dalmatians, etc., neither would I support erasing all mention of fictional items.  Sourcing to the sites on the web would be relatively easy. Mandsford 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you read the text in this article? These are essentially descriptions of Gremlins that appear for (at some points) mere seconds in the film with non-speaking roles. The List of Pokemon, List of Smurfs, List of Care Bears, etc. all contain details and exposition because the subjects have been presented in media as developed characters. The List of Gremlins is akin to listing every single zombie that appears for a few seconds in Dawn of the Dead. At most there should be a character section for Gizmo and Stripe in the main film's article. Additionally, the actual article is filled with original research, opinion, fancruft and minutia to an intricate level of detail. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The size of the article could stand some abridging, particularly when it repeats information already in the article about the film, and I agree that there are problems in making up names (unless "Bat-Gremlin" is written somewhere), but again, this is the preferred form for describing fictional characters and there is nothing that can't be fixed with some editing. Remember that in Wikipedia's old days (I've been here since 2007), there probably would have been (and maybe were) separate "biographies" about "Gizmo" and "Stripe", and, worse yet, there are a lot of people who would have voted to keep such articles because they were about a major character in a popular film.  Over the course of time, the character and episode articles that used to be representative of Wikipedia got folded into collective articles like this one.  On the other hand, if someone were to create a brand new article about a gremlin now, it's likely that they would be referred over here.  We can't close off every outlet that people have for a topic that is of interest to them.  While I myself am not interested in Gremlins (I thoroughly despised the 1984 film, and never considered spending time on its sequels), other persons are.  As I say, this is a compromise.  I would much prefer to keep this "gremlin" of an article, no matter how imperfect it may be.   It's far better than to figuratively put water upon it and have it multiply into lots and lots of horrible individual articles.    Mandsford 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * These aren't "characters" – the only thing mentioned in several of the details for each Gremlin is a description of their appearance. There is no character exposition to expand upon since most appear for a few seconds in either of the film. The "other articles group similar characters into one article" argument does not apply to this AFD since the article in question includes minimal summary outside of appearance or what other characters in the film do when encountering the Gremlin. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is pure in-universe plot summary.  In the absence of reliable sources discussing the individual gremlins it seems better to have coverage of their appearance and behavior in the film articles where it already is.  Eluchil404 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate combination article. The only solution to the back and forth over fiction is combination articles, where the individual parts of them do not have to be notable (they might be, and still the might be best written about  in a combination article, or they might not, but there's enough information to include them.) Mandsford in my opinion has it right. the alternative is a set of random inclusions as the interest in the AfD discussion happens to be.   DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, entirely unreferenced OR. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - uncited original commentary. Off2riorob (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2010 (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.