Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of memorable movie character names

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

List of memorable movie character names

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

List of memorable movie character names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NLIST. (Who has decided said criteria...?) – DarkGlow • 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Lists. – DarkGlow • 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Löschen, no source for any aspect of the criteria. --Cerebral726 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Removed criteria. List is based on cited references. Amirak (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen No proper WP:LISTCRITERIA, which are supposed to be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. These categorically aren't – the first is It should be unique and memorable name of a prominent character in a (Hollywood) movie, but "unique and memorable" is of course hardly objective. Furthermore, why Hollywood specifically? That's just blatant WP:Systemic bias. I don't see this being salvageable. TompaDompa (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • We could rename it to List of memorable movie character names in American cinema, and also have Category:List of memorable movie character names in Mexican cinema, List of memoralbe names in British cinema, List of memoralbe nakmes in Hindi-language cinema, etc. That would elimante systemic bias, but it would not really solve the issues of no clear definition. Is this supposed to be characters who are only in movies, or are characters who actually first appeared in books but were later in movies eligibile as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Well, a few like James Bond started out as a character in a British novel, and Eliza Doolittle as a character in a British play, so evidently if a character was in a film funded by the American film production complex, we can include it no matter what its origin. If that makes any sense I doubt. The whole thing boils down to there are no objective ways to decide what does and what does not belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Löschen. This list isn't encyclopedic, it's just someone's personal list of memorable movie names. Now a list such as AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains could be justified since it would have coverage of the list itself, but this isn't that type of list. To be honest, this could potentially be deleted under WP:A11 or at the very least, snow closed since I don't imagine this has a snowball's chance of surviving AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Oh come on -- I included six references. This is hardly a personal list! Amirak (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • • Beyond that, the list of 20 has Dorothy Gale and Mary Poppins on it. Neither of them are on this list. Why? What reliable sources justify this exclusion. These are another two characters that originate with books, not films. That may be a reason to exclude, but then why are Bond and Doolittle here since neither started as a film character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

    References are not the same as reliable sources. You included references that list 20 (and not clearly because of name significance per se), 50, 101, and a few that list 100.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen Thoroughly subjective list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Arguably any of AFI 100 Years... series articles is subjective. Amirak (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• There are multiple holes in that argument. First is that the AFI bases their lists on research and a very specific set of rules. This limits the subjectivity to a certain degree because to get on the list the film would have to not only meet those requirements, but also have to have been covered in multiple independent, reliable sources. It's also worth noting that the list is limited to American films that were released during a very specific period in time. Secondly, AFI is a major notable institution so a list from them will be seen as more of a landmark thing than say, a list put out by Empire or Watch Mojo. They don't put out "lists of the most notable/major/etc" every day.

There's also the issue that the lists are based on characters rather than names. Big difference there, believe it or not. A character can have a memorable name but otherwise be a forgettable character. (IE, people don't remember anything about the character other than the name akin to how many people remember the phrase "that's a spicy meatball" but not the product/company it was meant to promote without looking it up online.)

Then there's the issue of this being based almost solely on US films - assuming a list of this type is feasible to create, it would need to take a global perspective rather than just US films. This would then move on to the issue of sourcing.

Not every list is going to be a RS as far as "most memorable characters" or "most memorable names" goes. A lot of these lists tend to be created as part of a slow news day and are just a product of whomever is working on the news article. Research may be conducted, but not always. Then there's the fact that not all lists are going to be reliable. The List Challenges page is certainly not going to be a RS on here, nor will random sites like The Good in Movies. Watch Mojo could be debated, but it's not going to be the strongest source here. However that poses a new issue:

What names are included off these lists? Do you include only the "weird" or "funny" names? Why one name over the other? What are the qualifications for it being a "memorable" name? To reiterate an earlier point, why focus on the names when the lists are about characters? Picking out names when this isn't the focus of the lists is essentially original research. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not trying to be harsh here, just that this is still a personal list because at the end of the day you're taking sources that aren't about memorable names and cherry picking characters out of them. That's why lists of this nature are typically not doable, because ultimately it's going to be based on OR to some degree. At most there could be a list of characters frequently considered to be iconic, but even then that would take a lot of justification and sourcing to be feasible. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You make some valid points, esp. regarding difference between characters and their names, which is what this list is about. I conceded there is subjectivity in the list, but I'd argue there is also some value (cf. List of humorous units of measurement). There is no other such list focusing on the character name, which in many cases is a creative expression of the writer just as the plot/script is. I think you either way for making a thoughtful, cogent argument. Amirak (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"thank you..." arrgghh! Amirak (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen, also unforgivable that it's missing Jeff Spicoli... Caro7200 (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  That character is not found in any of the cited sources. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen- the is basically the Platonic ideal of an incurably subjective inclusion criterion. Reyk _YO! 21:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  You're right -- subjective criteria removed. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen. Arbitrary arbitrariness. "It shouldn't be ... just weird"? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Removed. Amirak (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen This list is literally only notable to a film fan looking for baby names (which will be rejected by their spouse because 'no you're not naming our child Keyser Soze'). Nate • (chatter) 23:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  Other than "Forrest", this last bares no resemblance to popular movie-based baby names . Amirak (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  "this list bares..." Amirak (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: Absolutely no reason for this to exist. –Ploni (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Löschen per WP:SNOW, "memorable" is inherently subjective. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Culturally significant"? open to suggestion. Many articles have an "in popular culture" section. Amirak (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The "in popular culture" section is a legacy of Wikipedia being overrun by fans creating trivial listings of fan crufts in the years prior to 2006. It is one of the early problems with Wikipedia we are working to fix. It is not a sign of what things should be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Löschen. No Pussy Galore, no Biggus Dickus--User:Amirak, can you explain this oversight? Drmies (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: We have a Bwyan --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Oversight indeed - alas Monty Python's Life of Brian was not in any of the cited sources. But Pussy Galore deserves to be there, IMHO. Amirak (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    • @Amirak: stop with the WP:BLUDGEON already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
      • User:TenPoundHammer, I'm fine with Amirak's responses--they're in good spirits. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as WP:A1. Nonsense list with BS inclusion criteria and godawful sourcing (only one list mentions names in the title and it’s from some random site I’ve never heard of). Dronebogus (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Delete no real reason to set up a limit, and since other sources chose to include multiple numbers and there is no agreement on what does and does not belong in this list, this will always be just a list that a few people agree on but has no concensus behind it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Since we don't do WP:BJAODN anymore, I can't suggest moving it to the List of unmemorable movie character names first. Totally justified move, btw, given WP:OR nature of this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Delete: There is no reason to keep what are functionally a random person's personal opinions here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Snow delete as WP:OR and WP:IINFO. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I agree with all of the above comments , this is a totally subjective list with no criteria, has OR, and fails NPOV. What does the memorable movie character names mean, as almost all of the refs have different names? Also, what is even the criteria for inclusion? It fails unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources (per TompaDompa), and has loads of exclusions. This should not be in mainspace and IMO this AfD could be closed as Snow Delete. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Delete, completely arbitrary and subjective list with no criterion whatsoever about what makes a movie character name memorable. The cited sources don't appear to be used to establish inclusion criteria. JIP | Talk 15:09, 3 July 2022 (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.