Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pulp Fiction 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.

List of Pulp Fiction characters
The result was   Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). TTN (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is completely unnecessary. All of the plot information and real world information about the characters is already located within the cast section and plot section of the main article. This list just duplicates the content and bloats it with trivial and redundant information. TTN (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Pulp Fiction (film). The main article is quite good in covering real-world context about fictional characters.  This list goes into convoluted detail about what even the most minor character does in the film, which is inappropriate per WP:WAF. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —— Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect This article was initially started as a compromise between just having the film article and having a seperate article for every character. The problem is, people will be tempted to create pages for the characters if there isn't a list like it, but that shouldn't be a problem if we establish clear consensus not to on this page. I agree, though, that this article duplicates a lot of info and is a magnet for unsourced trivia. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting half of the article during discussions, is in bad form. What's left isn't different than what you say redirect to.   Discuss the long version please, and allow consensus to be formed.   D r e a m Focus  19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as this is one instance in which the characters and plots actually serve as THE focus of scholarly studies found on Google Books. See for example Pulp Fiction - An Analysis of Storyline and Characters, i.e. reliable sources indeed exist that can be used to construct an out of universe analysis of specifically the characters (for which a few of their actors/actresses won or received nominations for major awards).  Probably more so than any other character list type article nominated this month, this one absolutely meets both WP:V and WP:N by even the most strict interpretations, because here we have scholarly academic studies that actually do focus on just this work of fiction and just this aspect of the work of fiction, in addition to the readily available interviews with Tarintino that can be used for a development section.  These characters, some of which have become iconic and spoofed in various media, have enough significance to warrants expanded consideration beyond the main article that focuses on the movie as a whole.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that the information is redundant. While the article is quite large, anything that can be added here can be added there. If anything has to be split from the article, something like "Critical analysis of Pulp Fiction" would be much more beneficial to the site that a list of characters. TTN (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does because the new information I added is NOT covered elsewhere. These citations cannot be redundant if they do not actually appear anywhere else.  And even then, once again, you are using articles for "deletion" to make a case for a merge at worst.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many time I have to say this: I am never in agreement with "merging" sources. They can independently be added depending on their relevance. The article already covers quite a bit about the characters, so what you've added here probably isn't important enough to add to the main article. TTN (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to be kidding, if you do not think scholarly studies titled Pulp Fiction - An Analysis of Storyline and Characters are not sufficient to justify a spinoff article. It is nominations like this one in which you totally lose us, because they characters are ridiculously notable and verifiable by ANY reasonable standard.  This one is not even one we can legitimately debate, because we are talking about academy ward nominated roles that serve as the focus of actual studies and that are discussed at length in other scholarly books as well.  These characters have a true cultural impact and there is no valid reason why on a paperless encyclopedia we would not cover characters that have achieved such interest.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When the content of the spin-out is still going to be 80% duplicative of the main article's content, it has no reason to be spun out. No matter what, these characters are still part of the film, so they have to be described there in some capacity. While it would be possible to just do a bare-bones cast list and have all of the real world information be placed within this article, it really doesn't seem ideal to me. If that's what people want to do, I'd be fine with that, but the best thing would to either just keep everything within one article and not bother including anything added here, or split out the critical analysis. Whatever the case, I'm going to withdraw this due to the fact that there is a good chance the closer is just going to do the whole "AfD isn't for editorial decisions" thing that they seem to do a lot now. I'll add a merge tag to see if anyone thinks any of the content should be merged. TTN (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Have a good day.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Pulp Fiction (film). No need for a separate article. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per ANobody. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above, per repetition WP:SPINOFF. Eusebeus (talk) 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If there is consensus on anything in this area, its that compromise is needed. Using combination articles for characters and settings is one obvious compromise. Won;t solve everything, but will solve most of the problems of character and setting articles. I continue to accept the good faith of those who oppose such compromise; they presumably do so because They are Sure that They are Right and that There's a Principle at Stake.  But disturbing  our slim compromises seems about the least constructive thing to do at this point. When different groups are each sure that they are right there re only two things to do: fight until one is defeated, or compromise, and accept you'll get what you want only some of the time.  (Yes, it's better to reach an actual consensus, but I do not think it possible. At any rate, it hasn't happened yet.)   Possibly it may be the case that some people in the film project oppose having any character section at all, and that is compatible with the nominator's argument, that plot and cast sections are enough, and there is no need to have this material as a separate article or merged.  I find that a really eccentric view, and unlikely to be the general consensus of the community.. Characters and plot are complementary--they explain each other; sometimes one section will bear the burden, sometimes the other, but the two are needed, and are routine in all other coverage of fiction.  As for the cast section, in this article at least it is devoted entirely to casting problems, and does not except incidentally say anything about the characters themselves at all. Casting is an important part of the Wikipedia coverage, and when not present should be added, but this does not mean subtracting the other.  After two years of discussing WP:NOT, the only thing that seems to have any consensus is that both real and fictional aspects must be discussed. This is the way to do it.    DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Keep Excellent points DGG, and A Nobody as well. More information can be put in a list of characters page, then in the main article, it growing into something wonderful.   D r e a m Focus  14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it was somehow missed up above, so again withdraw. TTN (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand, with a eye out for unsourced trivia. As DGG points out the existing parent article does not deal with the actual characters in any sort of detail or in the same manner as does this "List"... and a merge would be needlessly cumbersome to the main article. Of course, as this article becomes more an in-depth study of the characters themselves, rather than just a simple list, perhaps the misleading name should be changed... Pulp Fiction character studies perhaps?  It must be remembered that the growth is the goal of Wikipedia and not its bane. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:19, 26 August 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.