Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cliffhanger endings


 * 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 No Consensus, defaulting to Keep, Delete opinions feel this will always be original research while keep opinions feel it can be cleaned up and sourced to avoid OR. As this defaults to keep strongley suggest it is cleaned up and sourced or am sure it will be renominated in the future. Davewild (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

List of cliffhanger endings

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

Fully unreferenced, and possibly original research. This also seems to be an expanded trivia section. Many of these bits, if properly sourced, might work in the articles about their various sections, but somehow I don't see it happening. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep It does illustrate the encyclopedic article Cliffhanger. It seems to me that identifying and describing a cliffhanger is more no original research than describing anything at all for an encyclopedia article. Footnotes are meant for material which might be challenged, and is anyone really interested in challenging whether or not something is a cliffhanger? If someone were really studying cliffhangers, this might be useful. Noroton (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are sources out there for this, e.g. books. I'm not seeing the OR.  OR would be my theory that cliffhangers are increasingly used to give the producers leverage in end-of-season contract negotiations with actors. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, how will this discussion come out? Every AfD is a cliffhanger, isn't it?  Delete I can see why this would have been spun off out of the Cliffhanger article, because it seeks to include every possible "to be continued" ending that ever was.  Because it takes all comers, it also includes endings that weren't intended as cliffhangers (as with Planet of the Apes).  A "what will happen next" question is now such a common feature of a TV show's season finale that it's too trivial to mention all of them.  Even the question of what makes a cliffhanger notable is pretty subjective, in that people would disagree about what should belong on a short list.  Beyond the ones that made the cover of a magazine, as with "Who Shot J.R.?", my opinion is that a true cliffhanger is one where the producers seem to have painted themselves in a corner and the viewer can't see that any of the possible alternatives are viable.  Better to scrap this one and let it be rebuilt with some parameters.  Mandsford (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but source, so that only notable cliffhangers are included. That shouldn't be that hard. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that sourcing idea. Noroton (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It adds value to Cliffhanger and should be kept.  The people who are putting forth that this is somehow WP:OR should have a look at what it means for something to be original research.   Cel  Talk to me  22:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of sources (thus spawning the WP:OR issue). I realize that it is probably a useful article, but without sources we just can't keep it.  Easiest way to fix this problem is to source some stuff.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on a minute lads, I've got a great idea!. Cliffhanger isn't so big as to need splitting. We don't need an entire list of every cliffhanger ending there's ever been (just about every drama series that;'s got a new season coming up, and every part of a multi-episode story arc). All we need are some prime examples. A considerably smaller, properly referenced, list could easily be added to Cliffhanger, and this could redirect to it. Grutness...wha?  00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Add a "smaller, properly referenced list...to Cliffhanger..." and within a week it'll be heaving with fandom-spawn: excessive plot explanations, howls of Nao, Spoiler! and 3RR-fest handbags over editnalia and wearying details of every single marginally unresolved episode ending of Miffy-tan the Warrior Vampire Housewife or whatever. If it could be kept to a select few which have the desired dramatic merit, all would be splendid but it won't stay that way. However we may try to keep it confined to the bloody doors off, I can just see the whole van going up everytime Plutonium27 (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Add citations and the example tends to slow those kinds of contributions; if someone's interested in maintaining it, that is, if the editor watching it simply demands citations, that slows it down further. See List of bow tie wearers. Selecting a few examples is difficult to defend. Noroton (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourcing is certainly possible--its just that nobody takes these kinds of articles seriously enough.  The remedy is to improve them, not remove them.  DGG (talk) 00:58, 20 March 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.