Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

List of characters in the Final Destination series

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I originally prodded this,but apparently it had been prodded before, which resulted in an automatic decline. Since I added the prod tag, the article has degraded even further. This is nothing more than an elaborate and extensive plot summary of the films (almost exclusively the first in the series). There is no real world significance indicated and the sources go to IMDB, cast lists, random movie pages, and the film itself (essentially, nothing of substance). 132 05:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator - Also, the photos and their captions don't help, as they are essentially promotional in nature, talking about what other roles the actors have played and what the actors starred in. Overall, to me, this really feels more like a glorified fanpage than an encyclopedia article. --132 05:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I created the page and just added what happened to each character but that was it. I never explained the plot etc. People then decided to erase everything I put and start up their own summaries. It was too late for me to change everything back when I returned from vacation, so I just gave up on it. Though, I agree it's nothing more but the plot being summarized. After the page was moved to "List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series", I decided I'd had enough. So I support the deletion of the article. It's just a plain, big-old mess now. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —hkr  Laozi speak  06:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. As the nom has indicated, the article is very crufty and in need of clean up, which I fully agree with. But be that as it may, I think the article can easily be trimmed down up to guideline standards. As per the precedent of having thousands of "list of fictional character" entries, these lists are perfectly fine, especially for large franchises like the Final Destination series.--hkr Laozi speak  06:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * List are fine. Extensive and redundant plot summaries are not. Your "List of fictional characters" is a category, not an article. Just because other articles exist, doesn't mean this one should. -132 06:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that every article on Wikipedia has to pass WP:N, whether or not you like it or whether or not other similar articles exist. As of now, this article does not currently pass WP:N, which is ultimately what decides whether an article stays or goes. ~--132 06:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the point, the other articles establish a precedent. Character lists entries are a perfectly notable subject that does pass notability guidelines under WP:FICT.. Your main point, that the article needs to be cleaned up is a perfectly valid one, just not for deletion. As per WP:DEL, clean up is not considered an important criteria for deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion".--hkr Laozi speak  06:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That other articles exist does establish a precedent: WP:WAX. --132 06:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:LSC: A list is warranted if it is about a notable subject, and "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert. The same rationale that allows the existence of "List of minor characters in Dilbert" should allow the existence of this entry. WP:LSC is an approved part of the Manual of Style and WP:DEL is official policy, while WP:WAX is an essay.--hkr Laozi speak  06:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And WP:WAX includes a caveat that specifically discusses this issue, that invalidates your point. "If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using [the] angle provides for consistency."--hkr Laozi speak  06:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, just because other articles exist, doesn't mean this one should. How are the characters (excluding their extensive summaries) notable? As of yet, nothing establishes notability per WP:N. Period. You can argue until you're blue in the face, but until you're offering reliable sources, nothing else really matters. --132 06:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reread the caveat. And I've repeatedly quoted all the relevant policies that establishes the notability of the article, all of which you've yet to address. To quote from the same essay: "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." Your argument is that it is poorly written, and because so it violates the criteria of WP:N. My response is that it cearly doesn't, and that the appropriate response is clean-up, as per policy and consensus, and not deletion.--hkr Laozi speak  06:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My argument is not, simply, that it is poorly written. To suggest as much means you haven't read a single thing I've said. "...all of which you've yet to address." And yet you have not made one single remark as to why the characters pass WP:N except for caveats, which, in all honesty, really just don't hold up (seriously Luke Skywalker is on a whole other plane than Tod Wagner). Either they do or they do not pass WP:N. Pick one. The fact that you are still clinging to the idea that the article is useful doesn't help, just to let you know. --132 07:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As evidence so far, you've yet to quote any criteria in WP:N which this article specifically violates, so I've assumed your argument is your nomination rationale (if it's not, you should clarify): "the article has degraded even further. This is nothing more than an elaborate and extensive plot summary of the films". These are points which can easily be fixed by a very quick cleanup. Again, "the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."--hkr Laozi speak  07:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The caveat does hold up within in context. Obviously, Tod Wagner is not as notable as Luke Skywalker (I've never suggested he was), but Tod Wager is not being nominated for deletion, List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series is. And List of characters and deaths in the Final Destination series is as perfectly as notable as any similar article, like List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of minor characters in the Matrix series.--hkr Laozi speak  07:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. I'm nominating all of the characters, not a single, specific one. The article must satisfy WP:N to be included, whether or not you agree with or like the subject matter. Again, whether or not other articles exist has absolutely no bearing on this one so stop trying to pull them in. In regard to notability, how about we start with the very first line of general notability requirements, eh? "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." In other words, this article doesn't not satisfy it because all sources are either unreliable or the film itself. I have no objection if the article stays if those sources are found, but, right now, they don't exist. The fact that a less than two week old account knows and argues this much about Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and little-known pages is unnerving (or not). --132 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the problem here, you're misreading the guidelines: I'm nominating all of the characters. No, you're not. You're nominating a list of minor characters. The list is under scrutiny, not each individual character. If this was true, any list would fail your interpretation of WP:N. The point of lists, as according to WP:LSC, is to have an entry for characters that wouldn't otherwise have a separate entry according to notability guidelines. The subject must be notable, not each character. To judge each character independently for notability is highly problematic, and goes contrary to established consensus.--hkr Laozi speak  07:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please explain the difference between "list of" and "list of". Either I'm nominating them all or I'm not. Frankly, I'm nominating them all. If some specific character is particularly notable, then that character should have its own article, not be smushed in with the other, non-notable characters. Also, the issue of your extremely new account is still an issue, which you have not addressed. --132 07:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD is especially relevant, speaking as someone who's recently created a list article and had to read through WP:LSC to get it up to DYK standards (I'm crossing my fingers that it'll pass through). Your argument for deletion is contrary to what I've read. I'm just directly quoting the guideline here: A list is created when Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria.' These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. What needs to be judged is the notability of the subject, and not that of the individual listed items.--hkr Laozi speak  08:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not resort to an irrelevant issue here, I've cited the relevant policies. And to clarify: By "extremely", you're referring to the fact that my account is over a week old. I began with writing/editing articles on Chinese ethnic groups and philosophy earlier this week, which required a great deal of research and looking up/reading all the notability and layout guidelines, especially since the subjects I dealt with are obscure and possibly prone to deletion. I've had some experience editing as an anonymous IP, but I've recently been reading up on a lot of policy and Manual of Style tips to get articles up on the front page. I dabbled with AfD early on after seeing articles I was randomly viewing nominated, but after being acquainted with the Wikipedia community (and some very helpful users giving me some great advice), in the past few days I've moved toward seriously helping the community with deletion discussions. We've all got to start somewhere, right? That doesn't change the fact that my arguments still stand, so please don't bite me. :) --hkr Laozi speak  08:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the series, but I've begun to initiate a major overhaul and cleanup of the article.--hkr Laozi speak  07:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You voted strong keep above and then post this? You still have to pass WP:N. Slapping on a cleanup tag and removing a few sentences doesn't really indicate a major overhaul and cleanup of an otherwise very problematic article. --132 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just started a few minutes ago. You're welcomed to help, of course. :) --hkr Laozi speak  07:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been working on the Final Destination articles for years... --132 07:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed most of the cruft that was filling up the article. Now planning on adding more sources. The article has gone from 40k bytes to 20k bytes, nearly halved, with most of the trivial details removed. --hkr Laozi speak  10:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources, including the New York Times, New York Post, and Variety reviewing each performance, along with a critical reception section for each relevant performance. As of now, the article is probably better cited than most of the "List of fictional characters" entries. What the nom has been implying is a policy change for the inclusion of "list of fictional character" entries, which is a discussion that belongs on the talk page of WP:LIST and not on AfD. With a clean up, this article definitely meets WP:N and WP:RS. I maintain my strong keep.--hkr Laozi speak  11:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article still needs a lot of work to it, a lot more cleanup. A lot of trivial stuff has been removed, but a lot of it is still left, and I'm not that familiar with the series to distinguish (I'm not especially interested in horror films). But I think it's doable.--hkr Laozi speak  23:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No indication the series is distinct enough to warrant a separate articles for the characters. Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello everybody. I am FDJoshua22, and I am new to discussions about deleting articles or lists such as this one. I am taking responsible for making those edits in the list, and I am terribly sorry for making the list a horrid example of Wikipedia. I am very disappointed of myself right now for doing such, since I have used the list as an advantage for making self-contributions to Wikipedia. I promise that if the list is either kept or deleted, I would accept the consequences. -- -- FDJoshua22 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * However, as a devoted fan of the series, adding a character list would be relevant to articles related to the franchise. This is because the film's articles (Final Destination, Final Destination 2, Final Destination 3, The Final Destination) had encountered massive editing processes due largely to the characters and their respective deaths being added into these articles; moreover, it usually took a long period of time before these articles have been shortened into a wikified format. Thus, adding a character list is important, but adding a detailed bio in each character should be reconsidered (like what I've done). -- FDJoshua22 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, if the respective admins or editors here have something to say to me, please go to my talk page by clicking here. -- FDJoshua22 11:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article just needs to be trimmed down and cleaned up. You've done nothing wrong, and your efforts to edit and expand the page have been highly appreciated. The deletion process is very simple to learn, and you'll quickly become accustomed to it, just read the guidelines at WP:DEL. From what I've seen so far from your contributions, you're already pretty adept at Wikipedia's Manual of Style (much more than me, as a newer editor!). It's just that the article contains a few trivial details that shouldn't be there. With those removed, and with more independent reliable sources added, the article should be kept. --hkr Laozi speak  11:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I understand. Thanks for clearing the message to me. Either how, if there is anyway I could help in making the list more appropriate, I am always free. -- FDJoshua22 11:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have heard of Final Destination, but never seen it. I read the article - and find myself little the wiser. Sorry, folks. Peridon (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   communicate 17:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is a mess. It may be worth considering whether or not the main characters are notable enough for their own individual articles.  If they are, you could split them out from this article and make room for the supporting characters who are not notable enough for their own articles.  Just a suggestion.  I have no idea how notable these fictional characters are.  See WP:FICT for notability guidelines.  Snotty Wong   gossip 18:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: After reading the overall result of this discussion, I noticed that thirteen squared had made a remarkable point here. The characters of the series is not notable enough for a separate article, that I guarantee. However, one ordinary fan of the series will say that the series more or less revolves about these characters dying one by one in Rube Goldberg-style ways. In fact, the characters' creative deaths have been the main subject of attention of the Final Destination franchise. As a suggestion, I would say that instead of having a list of the characters, how about a list of these character's deaths? After all, death is the main element that describes the series. -- FDJoshua22 06:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable series gets a character list article, as has always been at Wikipedia, and always will hopefully remain. All notable articles get side articles for list of characters and list of episodes/games/issues.   D r e a m Focus  21:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Character lists are perfectly acceptable spinout articles to keep the main articles from growing too long. Edward321 (talk) 02:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Hope you guys don't mind, but I put the major reconstruction template in the list. Since I am free this week, I will work on the list by adding all characters. I am now following the format User:Hongkongresident used, and I will also add critics while at it. -- FDJoshua22 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep character lists are perfectly acceptable and even desirable for notabile fictional properties, which this certainly is. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:45, 25 October 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.