Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cliffhanger endings (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   dropped off a cliff. (WP:SNOW) The Bushranger One ping only 02:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

List of cliffhanger endings
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

AfD in 2008: No consensus. Article has existed for 5 years. 600 items with 7 citations. Fairly indiscriminate collection of information: Who decides what is "cliffhanger"? Most of us would disagree with many of them. Cresix (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per my reasons for nomination. Cresix (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources in the article constitutes a reliable source, in my opinion. According to the notability criteria for stand-alone lists, it's not totally necessary for every item on here to be independently notable, but the concept needs to be notable and I think at least some of the additions need to be discussed in reliable, independent sources like this one from The New Yorker.  I think an optimal solution discussed in the previous AfD is to find sourced cliff-hangers and place some of them in the article for cliffhangers.   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It just a list of endings which some editor considers to be cliffhanges. North8000 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Cliffhangers depend on the person's preference, so much of these are mainly opinions. Over 600 "cliffhangers" and only 7 refs? Are you kidding me?  Zappa  O  Mati   03:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, a 180-kilobyte plot summary list with next to none references, indiscriminate inclusion criteria. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 09:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 09:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 09:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)   I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Trivia accumulation with no logical inclusion parameters. No significant navigational function. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pretty much an indiscriminate list of trivia with no real sources to back up 99.9% of the information presented. Not only that, but all the information here is just pure plot information with no indication of real world signifigance, and much of which is already described in each individual entries' main article.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete because this list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and has an inclusion criteria that is too broad. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Throw off a cliff. This is an indiscriminate list of trivia and as such has to go. Too many films and series, not enough reliable sources, it's just not worth maintaining. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:18, 18 August 2012 (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.