Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horror icon

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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horror icon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Any information that is mentioned on this article has already been mentioned in their respective articles, and even if there's something new the info can just be merged with the respective articles, or maybe into the article horror film. I tried speeding this under G2, thinking it was perhaps someone who was just interested in horror films and did his first article on horror films, but it was declined. I felt that it didn't really apply under any other speedy nomination, hence the AfD. There's no citations, so this could be original research, and the article is also an orphan. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this BRAND new article and tag for continued work. More than just the characters themselves, certain actors and film directors (IE: Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Jr., Stephen King, Brian De Palma, Alfred Hitchcock, Don Coscarelli, ect.) are considered "horror icons" through their bodies of work, and the topic of "horror icon" is notable, improvable and sourcable.[1][2][3][4][5] and many more. The topic of "Horror Icons" has been discussed and analyzes in multple book newspaper, and news sources. I am concerned for for this being improperly tagged for speedy as a "test page" 11 minutes after creation and then being sent to AFD 10 hours after the improper prod was declined. So now what? Lack of sourcing and format issues are not compelling arguments for deletion of a brand new article on an arguably notable topic. Was WP:BEFORE followed or any concern toward this topic's WP:POTENTIAL? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt. This term is used akin to how the term "scream queen" is used to describe specific female horror movie actresses, although the way they're used is somewhat different. (Scream queens specifically reference female horror actresses while the term "horror icon" can refer to characters, writers, actors, directors, or anyone that's considered to be extremely well known and a staple to the genre as a whole.) There are multiple instances where the term is used in books (as shown per Schmidt) and I've included one book in the article, an academic text that specifically uses the term "horror icon" in its title. I want to note that the book is volume 2 of a 2 book set, which shows that the term is more than just a fly by night neologism. You can also see it in use in various internet articles like this one, this one, and this article by Forbes. I kind of liken this to the recent AfD for "movie marathon", where this is a term/notion that is so widely used and referred to that it's one of those rare exceptions where I'd say that the term is obviously notable and that deleting this would definitely put Wikipedia at a severe disadvantage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Schmidt and Tokyogirl79.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting article on a notable topic by a fairly new editor, improved by MichaelQSchmidt and Tokyogirl79. Referencing and formatting are a bit of a struggle for almost anybody starting here. Lemnaminor (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article has rapidly become a collection of poorly sourced laundry lists and unsourced discussions. There are no discernible inclusion criteria, and there really can't be any, beyond "somebody used this phrase to describe somebody or something somewhere. "Horror icon" isn't a meaningful phrase, just a media/popular catchprase. When you look at parallel articles/lists, they're substantively incoherent. Ultimately, distinguishing "horror icons" from horror-related subjects isn't any more worthwhile an effort than distinguishing "movie stars" from actors and actresses, or "great authors" from authors generally. It's not really different from trying to define a canon here, which can't be done without violating NPOV and NOR. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums considered the best, while not clearly conclusive, lays out relevant arguments in a similar context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1500+ book results, 150+ scholar results, 135+ news results, and 25 archived newspapers tend to show the term is meaningful enough through its wide and continued usage over a many-years period to be worth writing about within these pages, and concerns with presentation or format of any article on a notable topic is best dealt with through regular editing. As everything within Wikipeida is spoken of elsewhere, meeting our primary inclusion criteria is the consideration. If information is supported by multiple outside sources, a claim of POV or OR is not ours, it's that of the source... whether industry expert, New York Times or Library of Congress. WP:DISCRIMINATE addresses your WP:WAX argument bringing up an unrelated AFD. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a phrase has been used repeatedly does not mean it denotes an encyclopedic subject. Everything you say would also be true of "Great writers", but there are very good reasons that's a redlink. What are the inclusion criteria to be? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends how and where and why and for how long a term has been used and in it being the subject of commentary and analysis in reliable sources, as are such definable "terms" like movie star, blue meanie, serial killer, etc. You could certainly create and make up as many empty red links as you wish, but they're "red" because no one has yet written the article. Readers can simply await the possible article on your suggestion for one on "great writers".

But this does not change that for the most part editors here find inclusion criteria set by WP:N. As offered above, the term "horror icon" has been subject of commentary and analysis in multiple news, book, and scholarly sources, including other encyclopedias. IE: "Icons of Horror and the Supernatural", "Horror Film Aesthetics", "The Gangster Film Reader", and "Cinefantastique" for instance. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia being built for its readers or not? We're WP:IMPERFECT... and WP:NOTFINISHED quite yet. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable topic, as shown by sources that discuss it in depth, and as such it passes WP:GNG with flying colours. By having a look at the sources, it also seems that Wolfowitz argument of "horror icon" being equal to "great writers" or any other similar generic phrase is not persuasive.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are sufficient evidence of notability, and the scope can be (and has been) sufficiently narrowed so as to avoid the scope creep concerns cited by Hullaballoo.--Mojo Hand (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.