Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Figwit

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figwit

This is an article for an unnamed character in the Lord of the Rings (film) with no lines who does not appear in the books. The only reason the article exists is because the actor portraying him is a member of the popular band Flight of the Conchords. The page should be either deleted or redirected to Bret McKenzie. I'm not aware of any guidelines for notability of film characters, but it's pretty obvious that should such guidelines exist, this character would not meet those criteria. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources like this verify the fan-derived name and contain sufficient out-of-universe information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The band has nothing to do with the existance of this article. Figwit is a kind of internet meme, actually, and there's plenty of sources for that. Not to mention that the character does have a speaking role in the third film, and that's solely because of the meme that made him popular. --Conti|✉ 21:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - character has received more than enough significant coverage to maintain a page. It's merely a little sad that the size of Figwit's page so greatly exceeds McKenzie's. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are 17 sources on the page. At least 7 are nontrivial articles in reliable secondary sources that are specifically about Figwit and having nothing to do with the Conchords. --Smashville^talk 22:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general notability guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Bret McKenzie. The only sources that focus on the character, rather than the person who played him, are from no later than 2002; he clearly has no lasting notability. Wikipedia should not be about documenting fleeting internet memes like this one; if it does pass our current notability guidelines, as the people above seem to think, then those guidelines ought to be rewritten, because cruft like this doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. Terraxos (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh... did you look at the dates for the articles? I see article dates from 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007. That's four different years, spanning a total of of six years. Yes, "fancruft" is deleted a lot, but only because it is "often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain[s] original research"—which this article isn't. You can call it "cruft", but you can't admit it's not well-done. Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the character was played by Bret McKenzie, but the article exists because the character was the subject of an Internet meme, not because of the actor's previous fame (in fact, this was much before the Flight of the Conchord show had even started, and arguably before it had gained much of the fame it has today). At any rate, the article is easily well-sourced enough (and it's even a GA). Mr. Absurd (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the reliable sources cited in the article are about Flight of the Conchords or Lord of the Rings generally, not about Figwit specifically, and only make passing mention of the character. As Terraxos mentioned, none of the articles that focus on Figwit (and not on the band or LOTR more generally) were made past 2002. Let's face it: Figwit is an internet meme that briefly got a tiny bit of attention from the fringes of the media but failed to achieve lasting notability. If we gave articles to every single internet meme, then we'd have articles on the Picard Song and the Shoes (video), both of which are redirects and also much more popular than the Figwit meme.

Additionally, it doesn't matter whether the article is well-done; it could be worthy of FA status but it still wouldn't be notable. Notability is distinct from quality. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources extend beyond the currentness of the subject. That's faulty logic, considering that's where most sources on every article come from. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. Also, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That is the notability guideline, which it clearly satisfies. --Smashville^talk 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the sources that matter, not the "popularity"—I'm sure if "Shoes" had enough sources, it could be an article, but I suspect it was mostly original research/plot re-hashing (and anyways, as Smashville pointed out, WP:Other stuff exists). Mr. Absurd (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A nomination for a good article must surely be a troll. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... AGF? Notability is not one of the requirements of a good article; it's perfectly possible for an article to pass WP:GA, yet be on a non-notable subject (as, I argue, this one has). Terraxos (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is "non-notable" doesn't make it so. You haven't given a good reason why this article should be considered non-notable despite meeting the notability standards. --Smashville^talk 17:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject of multiple, substantial, reliable independent publications. Satisfies usual N criteria, no apparent reason to deviate from usual practice here. Wily D 10:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No comment.--X093i (talk) 14:02, 23 October 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.