Deletion of List of Kill Bill characters

Comment: concise versions of character descriptions to Kill Bill. While I agree that the films have received extensive academic coverage (as I researched and listed at Talk:Kill Bill/references years ago), this does not necessarily automatically permit a list article for the characters. The problem is that this list article entirely violates  and  from the get-go. Multiple film series articles have actor/role sections indicating film appearances, and Kill Bill is no exception. I see no problem with a little more detail about each fictional character, but if we were to trim this list (and it would be truly decimated), it would fit comfortably at the film series article. The academic coverage does not directly prove that a list of characters would be notable. It proves that Analysis of Kill Bill could be notable because that scope is self-evident. (Though such content, if minimal at first, would warrant being started at the main article and be split. This outgrowth is what I refer to next.) We cannot tell from looking at the possible references that coverage can be written to talk about each character distinctly. How do we know whether or not most of the analysis requires being under a section heading broader than one character's section heading (or listing)? To create an article about a fictional character, it is possible to pull together details and have a write-up that, while somewhat redundant to content elsewhere, can stand distinctly. However, a case has to be made through active editing and not presumed. There needs to be reliably sourced and detailed distinct write-ups of multiple characters to warrant splitting from Kill Bill as not to overwhelm it. That would be the proper encyclopedic outgrowth for certain topics that exist under the notability umbrella of the broader topics (the films themselves
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PLOT||WP:WAF)

Comment: There are not enough sources detailing real world information to justify the amount of plot in the article. It is currently just an |unnecessary, overly in-depth plot summary with no justification. It does not act as a companion article to contain proper information that otherwise would not fit, but instead acts as a dumping ground for information that is more suited to Wikia. The above sources do not show any potential for improvement of this topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)