Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Control Program (Tron): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Replaced obsolete font tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 24:
*'''Merge''' with [[tron (film)]] and redirect. Unreferenced and no evidence of true independent notability. Minor use in film-associated game doesn't seem to me to be sufficient.- ([[User:Wolfkeeper|User]]) '''WolfKeeper''' ([[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|Talk]]) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per lack of significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject ''directly'' in detail" (emphasis mine). Any useful information should be imparted on the parent article, [[Tron (film)]]. —[[User:Erik|<
*'''Delete''' per nom. If keepers want the information, they are welcome to source the info, prove notability, and add it to the Tron article. [[User:MichaelQSchmidt|Michael Q. Schmidt]] ([[User talk:MichaelQSchmidt|talk]]) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Line 30:
*'''Keep''' Reasonable topic for spinout article per [[WP:FICT]] and WAF. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
:*Also: [http://books.google.com/books?um=1&q=%22Master+Control+Program%22+tron&btnG=Search+Books] would indicate notability. 100 books that use this phrase (apparently in the context of Tron) isn't bad. And 64 news articles with the same search? [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&tab=pn&q=%22Master+Control+Program%22+tron&ie=UTF-8] I suspect there are some RS in there. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
::*[[WP:N]] requires that the topic must have significant coverage, meaning "that sources address the subject ''directly'' in detail" (emphasis mine). Your examples only mention the Master Control Program in relation to the film ''[[Tron (film)]]'', ''not'' as a separate entity. There is no reason to spin off a separate article. [[WP:WAF]] even says, "Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic; either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles." If anything, Benjiboi's suggestion is more realistic, but I still think that there can be a better effort to expand detail about actors and roles ''within'' the film article. —[[User:Erik|<
:::*My search included the word Tron, so of course that's the case. Also, I think your argument is somewhat flawed. [[Luke Skywalker]] is only discussed (I'd imagine) in the context of [[Star Wars]]. But I think we'd all agree he meets WP:N. Where is the line? Searching for "star wars" "Luke Skywalker" turns up only 700 books. If this is 1/7th as notable as Luke, I personally think it belongs here. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::::*I think that the difference is we are talking about a character in one film and a character who has made multiple, significant appearances in different works under a large franchise. I really don't think using [[WP:SET|search engine test]]s really work here because the terms pop up in different manners. "Master Control Program", from what I can tell, is repeatedly mentioned as part of the film's synopsis but is not directly analyzed. On the other hand, Luke Skywalker is critically examined as a character. That's the key difference. —[[User:Erik|<
:::::*I agree. However this term has also shown up in parodies and a few other spots. I didn't look through all 100 books or 64 news articles, but in my experiance, that many hits in books or news are likely to have ''some'' critical analysis. I only looked at 1 book and less than 5 news stories... [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::*Provided that there is supple coverage about MCP's role in ''Tron'', is there a reason why we have to separate the content from [[Tron (film)]]? Even with parodies and so forth, everything related to MCP is in the context of film and never apart from it. The film article isn't very extensive (ignoring the Plot section that needs trimming), so why not have all film-related content there? For what it's worth, check out "Sign of the Times: The Computer as Character in Tron, War Games, and Superman III" in ''Film Quarterly''. It's good information, but it's still very much related to the context of the film. —[[User:Erik|<
:::::::*I'm unaware of something needing to be notable outside of a context. Most athletes are only notable in the context of their team (for example). So I don't see that as a barrier to inclusion. Merger might well make sense, but that's an editorial decision. There seems to be enough information and sources for the article, and that's what the AfD is trying to determine. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*Everything related to [[Yorick]] is in the context of Shakespeare's ''[[Hamlet]]'', but for being just a skull in a play, I doubt anyone would question that character's independent notability. [[User:DHowell|DHowell]] ([[User talk:DHowell|talk]]) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
| |||