Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bride (Kill Bill)

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. ✗plicit 00:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bride (Kill Bill)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:NOPAGE. There are only two Kill Bill films and this article doesn't have so much info in it. All the stuff about the creation of the character can go in the Kill Bill Volume 1 article, anything worth keeping from the "Cultural impact" stuff can be merged into one or both articles as appropriate. Popcornfud (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Puzzled Oppose, ?, this page is very well sourced. The Bride is one of the most iconic characters of the era, and is listed as 23rd of the 100 greatest movie characters. An article about her seems fully encyclopedic (especially given the esteem of her character in lists such as linked above) and is sought out by hundreds of readers every day. I remember when the amazing page of Kill Bill characters was sadly deleted (and that should certainly be brought back) and now a request to remove the detailed article of THE main character of the two films? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone page. A character from a movie being listed as one of the great movie characters (even on multiple lists) does not automatically mean that character needs a separate page — not when it can all be covered in the main movie article. Popcornfud (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no main movie article, the character is prominent within two films. Your nomination wants to condense this page into the first. This is a major iconic film character, one of the strongest female characters ever portrayed and probably one of the greatest performances on film (when Uma Thurman wasn't nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress Tarantino said, to paraphrase, "Not only should she have won but they should deliver it to her home personally and not make her come and get it"). The focus should be on improving the page, deleting it surely doesn't seem the way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very clearly meets WP:GNG. Clicking the links in the AFD template demonstrates this very quickly. Taking a couple minutes, you can find loads of in-depth SIGCOV.
1. Academic book with 10 pages of SIGCOV: [1]
2. A bunch more in this one [2]
3. A few pages more in this one [3]

—siro χ o 11:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for formulating a response based on Wikipedia policy rather than "but this character is iconic".

I'm clearly on the losing side here, but I am skeptical that these sources, concisely summarised in encylopaedic form, could amount to a useful amount of material to justify an entire page. I am seeing them as amounting to about 1000 words of prose, which would make a juicy section in of the Kill Bill pages but, imo, is not enough to form into a standalone article.

Keep in mind that without the analysis, the current Bride article comprises 1) a plot summary of both films 2) a bit of info about the writing of the character 3) a handful of pop-culture influences, all of which should already be in the Kill Bill articles. Popcornfud (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article on this could absolutely be improved, it just needs some time, effort, and research. A quick search showed that the character has been extensively discussed in the academic sphere and has even been the central focus of quite a few dissertations. It's just a matter of finding the ones that focus specifically on her as opposed to in passing for the film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to add: I'm adding stuff to the "see also" section I've created. One thing to keep in mind is that because the film is so utterly and completely central to the film a lot of the scholarly sources that seem to be just about the film are really about her in specific. This is what I meant by ones that focus specifically on her as opposed to the film. The ones that would be more about the character will go more into what she symbolizes, her character drives, her changes during the course of the two films, and so on. The ones that are more about the film will take less of a focus and be more about the storyline and characters as a whole, as well as the symbolism in the movie in general. It's sometimes a subtle difference, but there's a difference. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Between the couple of scholarly sources that were already present in the article at the time of the nomination and the sources brought up above, the character easily passes the WP:GNG on their own merits. And using her real name of "Beatrix Kiddo" as the search words bring up even more significant coverage. Its somewhat rare for me to be convinced that a character that only appeared in a single piece of media has enough coverage that goes beyond mentions in general discussions on that piece of media to support an independent article. But, in this case, there clearly is. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm pretty confused by the proposal from the nom. The subject has solid sources provided both here by siroxo and on the article itself. No question this should be kept. User:Let'srun 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching under Beatrix Kiddo, there are whole journal articles comparing this character to Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider games, comparing her to Shakespeare’s Tamora in Titus Andronicus, exploring the Oedipal relationship with Bill, and works exploring her as a white character in an Asian stereotype. There are articles in multiple languages as well. In short, there is a great depth to the research specifically on this character, which clearly shows reliable and significant coverage. I think this was hastily nominated.LingLass (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2023 (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.