Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bit (character)

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 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit (character)

Short article consisting primarily of in-universe information and trivia. This is a very minor 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) — 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Great, a call to obscure information about Tron just in time for renewed public interest in light of the sequel. I just had a look at the current version of the main article and the Bit isn't mentioned at all, is that what you meant by an "appropriate level" of coverage? I disagree, Keep. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bit has a bit part (if you'll excuse the pun) and really doesn't need any specific mention, hence my assertion that it has an appropriate level of detail is, in my opinion, correct. If it does have some notability such that it warrants mention, it'll probably be limited to one or two sentences at most, which can be easily merged into the main article's plot summary. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability. If this character fails to be mentioned at the film article itself, then it surely does not deserve its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, far too minor a character to warrant an independent article. JBsupreme (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If keepers want the information, they are welcome to source the info and add it to the Tron article. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the only reason I can think of is "I liked bit!" and I know that WP:ILIKEIT isn't really an argument... DANG!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:18, 29 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 09:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I question whether the characters really need their own separate descriptions, or if they just need a slight bit more description in the plot summary. The major characters already have what I believe to be enough of a summary description in the plot summary for the average reader to understand who they are and what their roles are. I would argue that the Bit is such a minor character that it doesn't need to be mentioned in the plot summary at all - it's something pretty to look at, mainly, but it serves no significant purpose in the plot - it floats around and goes "Yes" and "No", and that's pretty much it. The current text in the Bit article goes MUCH more into depth about the Bit's construction and behavior than would ever be considered appropriate for an encyclopedia, and when you strip out the inappropriate trivia-level detail, you're left with, at best, one or two sentences which could easily be merged into the plot summary. (And, as I said, I think it's just going to make the plot summary crufty.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A thoughtful look at each character from a non-universe perspective can certainly be helpful and go beyond cruft. Bundling all the characters together would also be a bit neater. I'm no expert in regards to this material but Tron has some enduring real world success and crossover so instead of deleting these three articles combining them would seem to make sense. Banjeboi 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge and redirect to Tron (film) or a new Characters of Tron article per Benjiboi. Even as a relatively minor character in this popular film, Bit gets significant coverage in reliable sources as an innovative use of vector graphics and morphing, such as in Creative Computer Graphics ("Unfortunately, Bit's extensive role in the film was curtailed to two minutes for scheduling reasons, but it remains one of the most memorable characters in the film - not bad for a pint-sized polyhedron.") and Meta-Morphing. 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) 23:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. I don't think the article fits notability by itself, but it might be an idea to merge it with the main Tron (film) article. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell's evidence that the chracter was innovative in the history of CG. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the issue is the Bit's impact on computer rendering, that still sounds more appropriate for the Development section of the main Tron article (where there is plenty of other text about computer rendering already) than a full-fledged article about the character. The Bit is not and never has been used to sell the film, promote a company (be a mascot), etc., which are all examples of out-of-universe context about the character. Discussion about the CG rendering is a separate facet that doesn't necessarily apply to the Bit itself, but to all of the computer rendering in the film and of the period. Since that's largely covered already, mentioning the Bit would seem appropriate as an example of the groundbreaking use of CG as art in this film. But I still think that the character article should be deleted. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DHowell's sources, but no objection to a merge and redirect to a single character page. Probably a good idea actually. Hobit (talk) 15:24, 4 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.