Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny 5

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 to Short Circuit. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny 5

Article has no reliable sources and no evidencing notability. Consists wholly of unreferenced trivia and plot reiterated from the Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 films; this fictional character is protagonist and central plot point for both, and duly covered in each. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~No Disassemble!!!~~ Actually, ~~delete~~ redirect to Short Circuit since most of this is covered in the articles on the films. What isn't already covered is trivial and unsourced. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) - changed to redirect DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it could actually be entirely possible to create a valid article on this topic. Such an article should contain in-depth information about character development, prop-design, puppetry, voice-acting and impact. This article however, is almost entirely in-universe and adds extremely little beyond plot-points from the two movies. (Still, in an all-out cage match between Johnny 5 and ASIMO, we all know J5 would beat ass.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Short Circuit or Short Circuit 2. I fully agree with Verdatum about the possibility of this information suitable for comprising a singular article, but as currently offered the sources fail WP:RS, being rather singular in their content and opinion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Sources are not up to snuff. JuJube (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Michael's comments. It's simply plot repetition of the Short Circuit movies, and doesn't need an article to do that. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elabouration. I thought about merging and redirecting the article before bringing to AfD; the problem is that merging the non-trivial information to the film articles will effectively just duplicate the plot already found there. As for redirecting, since this character is the central point of both films, to which would you redirect? Perhaps turn it into a disambiguation page? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great question. Perhaps now time to reconsider merging Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 and then do a further merge, since this information belongs with the series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not personally familiar with Johnny 5, but I gather that it's huge in the popular consciousness in the States yet not well-known outside them, so I implore the lot of you to make sure that WP will still be able to tell people what the thing is when this AfD is over.

Yeah, that's about it. --Kiz o r 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BEFORE. Neutral on merging; but, such an obvious search term redirecting to the movie seems clear-cut to me. Neier (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with that, but to where should this redirect? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete, don't merge. Or I could say, merge all the encyclopedic content here, which is more or less zero. That's too bad because the subject is notable and would probably make a nice article about a recurring film character with some influence on popular culture and subsequent films. But it's written in-universe without any real content and no sources. So it would be very hard to improve it, and indeed nobody has improved it despite notability and other tags being on it for a long while. It would be easier to start from scratch, which is what someone should do either now or after it gets deleted if they want to help. Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may provide input on behalf of 208.87.54.35 (talk · contribs); I believe that based on the empirical evidence ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), she or he !votes to keep the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per others. This info should be in the film articles, a 3rd article doesn't add anything for wiki readers.Yobmod (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as so many have explained. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 26 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.