Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kill Bill characters (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus to delete since most of the article is a plot summary which can be found in the articles about the two movies. If anyone is interested in future merges, let me know so that I can provide the content. Tone 15:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Kill Bill characters
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( 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. No demonstration of why these characters, which have only appeared in two films, are notable enough to deserve their own page. I have looked myself but cannot find (online at least) significant coverage of these characters such that we need an article. I first proposed deleting this two years ago (the outcome was no consensus) and see no basically improvement since then. Popcornduff (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per all the reasoning from the 2017 deletion attempt (does it have to be repeated? To the Closer, please read the 2017 attempt, or if the nominator prefers I could cut and paste my comments here - [Edit to boldface as this hasn't been done as far as I know, 25 August:] by the way, Popcornduff, please notify all of the participants of that discussion). At over 800 views a day this page is one of the most popular pages concerning one of the classic 21st century films, and of course the characters are notable (Tarantino and Thurman are now talking seriously of filming the long-awaited third film). This is one of those "here we go again" nominations, and hopefully will be the failed second attempt to Kill it. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above, very notable film and this can be considered a split from the parent article that would make that page too long if it was merged back, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge There is no real secondary coverage of these characters. The previous AFD's keeps pointed out that this could be trimmed and beefed up with sources- that has not happened. The article extensively duplicates the films' plot, which is not appropriate. Outside of the standalone article for the bride, the few secondary details can be added to the Cast list on the film page or in the casting pages. ---M asem  (t) 20:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Although it can't be used as a source, this page on Wikipedia is one of, if not the, principal pages on the internet for the topic. There are so many prominent characters in the films that references would be mostly the same references for the reputably sourced film reviews. The page has 800-plus readers a day, even after being loaded down at the top with giant templates. It is a good overview of the topic. Merging is always possible, but that move most of the already existing text and images and would mean making the Kill Bill pages much longer. Keeping this page seems the logical way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSUSEFUL is not an arguement. You're free to "rescue" this information over to, say, Fandom.com/Wikia. For fictional works/etc. our goal is to summarize real-world importance, not their in-universe importance. And I'll re-iterate: most of the details on these characters are regurgitations of the plots of the two films, which is unnecessary duplication. Take out the plot-related elements and you have almost nothing at all left.  --M asem  (t) 22:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're citing an essay to remove an 800-viewer a day article, so yes, it is an argument. Any page on any fictional character will be either a rehash or an extension of the plot of a book, film, etc. Merging this page will just make those plots much longer and would necessitate a large amount of new text in 1 and 2. Keeping that text and easily-found character list on this long-term popular page isn't only common sense (which is all that should be needed to Keep this page), it is certainly useful, interesting, and WP:ILIKEIT. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out your argument is based on that essay. I am arguing there's no secondary sourcing thus this fails the GNG. Yes, articles on characters will repeat some of the plot of a film, but we absolutely do not need full a full extent of the character's role in the film. And no, if you consider the plot already on the movie pages, then you don't need ANY of the plot given by these entries, they all are duplicating info. Character articles are not a cheat to get around WP:NOT. --M asem  (t) 03:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Correct, you're saying my points have no validity because there is an essay. I'm saying they do because, it's an essay. The plots in the film pages are very limited and both pages point to this characters page as the main page for characters. That's why the page should of course be kept. Do delete fans here think that this is a B movie that is forgotten in a couple of years? This is one of the major films of the 21st century, and the characters page reflects that in detail and interesting insights. I hope that the closer is not a head counter but someone who appreciates the work and interest this page generates (remember, kind closer, over 800 views a day, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't keep pages because of popularity, so 800, 8000, or 8 million page views a day means squat. We are looking for secondary sources on this character, per WP:N and WP:NOT and WP:WAF. The Bride has it, so she has a separate article but this one does not. If this is such an important film, it should be easy to show secondary sourcing that talks only of the characters. Without sources, it fails several policies, and we're not going to keep just because its a popular page and/or a unique page on the Internet. --M asem (t) 00:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Kill Bill's list. It appears to be just a plot regurgitation, with the occasional unsourced claim thrown in. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly rabbit.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:23, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:JUSTPLOT. The article is just a list of character summaries that does not support sourced commentary. There is nothing of any encyclopedic value here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Has anyone notified the two film pages? Or the 2017 discussion participants as I requested? Editors who have an interest in this list and that discussion would be reading those pages which, if read, have very slight summaries of characters in the plot or character lines and refer people to this character list as the main page for characters. So the mentions that the plots covers the page contents is incorrect. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * p.s., there is a good faith suggestion on the deletion criteria to alert principal editors, the creator, and others of this nomination per "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Is this generally followed by deletion noms? Any of them? If not, the entire structure of the deletion section of Wikipedia should maybe be taken down for reconstruction. The page's creator, , and the main editors who worked on it, may enjoy knowing that their work is being debated here. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete 95% of the article is just plot, and the tiny amount of content related to character development / reception references that could be merged into the film articles, if considered due. Scribolt (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: I voted keep during the first AfD, but I agree with the above deletion votes. Also, upon further reflection, a majority of the sources provided in the first AfD deal more so with the film rather than the characters themselves so I am less certain about how the list meets WP:GNG. I could possibly see some characters (like O-Ren Ishii) spun off into independent articles, but that is a completely different conversation. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello . As a commentator in the last AfD did you get a notice about this discussion? I'd asked the nominator a couple of times to send one to those participants. Thanks. As for other articles, it would be nice to see those. But in the meantime this page is a valuable addition to the film page, harms nothing, and gives 800 people a day information they seek. I'll never understand the concept of deleting a popular page such as this. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not get a notification, but I look through fictional elements-related AfDs somewhat regularly. Page views are not a good argument for keeping an article or a list. The focus should be on WP:GNG (i.e. whether or not there is significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources). Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

‑Scottywong | [communicate] || 19:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - There seem to be plenty of sources to support the notability of this topic per WP:GNG; many sources have in-depth analysis of individual characters. I don't see any reason to delete this relatively well-written article that has been around for 11 years. Sure, it could use a bit of cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete. I'll simply re-post some of the sources provided by User:Jclemens at the last AfD, since they haven't changed:
 * "Mommy Is a Bride With a Hanzo Sword: quentin tarantino's destabilization of Gendered Identity in Kill Bill"
 * Mindful violence: the visibility of power and inner life in Kill Bill
 * Themes of Whiteness in Bulletproof Monk, Kill Bill, and The Last Samurai
 * Revenge and the Family Romance in Tarantino’s Kill Bill
 * These are essays about the films, and don't focus on the individual characters discussed in the article. If you stuck to those sources you'd have almost nothing to write about. Try it. Popcornduff (talk) 19:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. I just opened the first link, turned to a random page, and found this passage:  I could continue much longer, but I don't want to get into copyvio territory. These sources are filled with these kinds of detailed analyses of individual characters in the film.  ‑Scottywong | [prattle] ||  20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * An excerpt from the second link:  ‑Scottywong | [babble] ||  20:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The first passage you quote from describes the characters in terms of the protagonist; in other words, they are not the focus of the essay. You'd be hard-pressed to stretch that sort of thing to an entire article about all of these characters.
 * The second quote is about the protagonist, Beatrix Kiddo, who has her own article and isn't the subject of this AfD. Popcornduff (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that we write an entire article about Vernita. However, I would argue that there is more than enough material in these sources to justify a paragraph on the character in this article. However, to add this much detail on each individual character into the main article on the film would cause that article to become too long. Therefore, this article is the most appropriate place for this information. ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,sans-serif;color:#440044;">| [confabulate] ||  20:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think, if you actually examine these sources, it's difficult to mine them for enough specific discussion of all the characters in the Kill Bill films sufficient to justify this page. They aren't the focus of the papers. Popcornduff (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to agree to disagree. These are not just "essays about the films", which "don't focus on the individual characters discussed in the article". The characters only exist in the films, so naturally the articles will need to discuss what happens in the films and how that shapes the characters. As shown above, there are sources that focus heavily on the characters, their relationship to each other, as well as the meaning and symbolism behind the characters and their actions in the films. ‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,sans-serif;color:#004400;">| [soliloquize] ||  21:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking these over, to put this information to try to justify keeping characters before using it to establish a Themes section of KB seems to be an extremely poor use of these sources. It's pulling the needles out of the haystack and missing that the haystack has more appropriate value to us. It would be better to devlope some type of themes for the KB to thus then establish where characters would fit in those themes. --M asem (t) 04:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - The lack of appropriate commentary leaves it as a bloated in-universe article suited more to Wikia. TTN (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nearly the entirety of the entries here are nothing more than unsourced plot summaries, and there have been no sources shown that would allow the vast majority of the entries on this list to ever be anything more than that. The few characters that do have some scant coverage that goes beyond plot summaries, and don't already have their own articles, can be easily covered in the either Kill Bill: Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 2.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you read Scotty Wongs keep defense above? Hard to refute. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, hence why I said "The few characters that do have some scant coverage that goes beyond plot summaries, and don't already have their own articles, can be easily covered in the either Kill Bill: Volume 1 or Kill Bill: Volume 2". The vast majority of the characters in this bloated mess of a page are either not even mentioned in any of those sources, or are described only in terms of pure plot summary.  And I wouldn't say that his defense is "hard to refute" at all, given that Popcornduff did an excellent job doing so.  Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Difference of opinion. I think Scottywong's well thought out and researched statement should be enough to save this popular page from deletion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete not because I don't believe that there could be a list, but because there needs to be enough content from secondary sources for multiple characters to be split off from both film articles. List of Smallville characters is a Good Article that shows this possibility. While this is only two films, a lot can be (and has been) written about Tarantino's films. Back in 2011, I compiled references to use at Talk:Kill Bill/references, and it seems extremely likely that there could be at least a healthy paragraph or two for each character across both films. However, this needs to be established by an editor. If there can't be much more than in-universe detail here, then the scope should necessarily collapse back to the individual films' articles. (Though I would not be unopposed to an article whose scope covers both films, including listing characters that appear in one or the other or both, accompanied by brief descriptions.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is largely original research WP:NOR WP:FANCRUFT - WP:NFCHAR says that fictional character lists need significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability - also that "coverage from reliable sources should talk about the character in a way which gives its notability from a real world or out-of-universe perspective. This means they are covered as a character in general, and not in the frames of its own series of fiction" - WP:CSC says that "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia" - only one of these characters, The Bride (Kill Bill), has it's own article - list does not meet notability guidelines, therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Scotty Wong - I think there should be just about enough out-of-universe coverage to establish a decent article here, even if this one is nearly entirely in-universe cruft.  Daß &thinsp;  Wölf  03:42, 31 August 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.