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

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]

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]

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]