Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Control Program (Tron)

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 redirect and merge to a page to be determined. Tan ǀ 39 21:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master Control Program (Tron)

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. While this is a primary character in the movie, the character has little to no demonstrated real-world notability and is already summarized at an appropriate level in the main Tron article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the article's list of other media where the MCP is spoofed or referenced, I find the claims of non-notability and in-universe-onlyness to be dubious. Keep. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but if you go and take a look at the edit history for Tron (film) and see how two entire sections of trivia were removed, and those were mostly about pop-culture references and spoofs, I think that the pop-culture references in the MCP's article will likely suffer the same fate when given the same scrutiny. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 (Talk) 22:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If keepers want the information, they are welcome to source the info, prove notability, and add it to the Tron article. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable topic for spinout article per WP:FICT and WAF. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: [1] 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? [2] I suspect there are some RS in there. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 search engine tests 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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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... Hobit (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. DHowell (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit. Seems to have substantial cultural recognition. Everyking (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Merge into Characters of Tron. This is a well-known movie that has real-world popular cultural success. The main article has no characters section, likely because these minor character articles exist. Marge them together as a split off the main Tron article. Banjeboi 09:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would be a good idea. Everyking (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you can pull that off without violating WP:FICT and WP:TRIVIA, be my guest. But I have my doubts that that will be possible. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How cany anyone violate WP:FICT, given that the community has yet to even decide if it is historical, an essays, etc.? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We may not have a full consensus on that one yet, but the overall spirit of the essay/guideline is to ensure that articles about fictional content don't go into an unnecessary level of depth about the fictional universe, characters, etc. In general (and in keeping with the core policies, WP:NOT, etc.), we want to keep such info limited to what is necessary to understand the topic as a whole. Trivia and in-depth descriptions are rarely appropriate - not to say they are never appropriate, but it's not very often that they are. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see who's to say what is and is not necessary. Obviously those who created, worked on, and read this article believe comprehensive coverage to be appropriate. Plus, as a sub or spinoff article, I am not sure why we shouldn't cover particular aspects of a fictional work in this fashion so long as we are able to source the content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tron (film). It seems that Tron is a popular movie and a large article, so this article would be a nice addition to it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 21:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least merge and redirect to Tron (film) or a new Characters of Tron article. As a major character in a relatively popular film, it's notability is certainly suggested by being a character in Kingdom Hearts II and being parodied on South Park. Please also note that the searching for "Master Control Program" and Tron gets 34 hits at Google Scholar, showing academic notability. While I don't have access to most of these items, some of the search results suggest more than just incedental coverage of the subject in relation to the film, e.g. the title of the article 'Sign of the Times: The Computer as Character in" Tron, War Games", and" Superman III"' suggests that it probably does have analysis of the character itself. But even if the notability of this character weren't sufficiently independent of the film, there is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge target exists. DHowell (talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tron was a groundbreaking movie and MCP's influence on subsequent popular culture, is indeed notable. RMHED (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my arguments expressed as replies above as well as per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:07, 3 August 2008 (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.