Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smarf

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 Too Many Cooks (short). Will preserve the history in case anyone wants to merge any of it J04n(talk page) 19:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smarf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional character that appeared only in one 11-minute short film and has no lines. What coverage he has received can't be dissociated from coverage of the short film as a whole, making this character insufficiently notable for a separate article. Sandstein 20:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - he is definitely a notable character, he is covered by a multitude of sources and serves a pivotal point in the story. As for "has no lines", the film is mostly non-speaking (aside from the hospital scene), which voids the argument as fallacious. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent notability established. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because there are sources talking about the puppet's creation and such, and about the Twitter debate. Both of these things are sourced, interesting to readers, and wouldn't have been well explained in another article. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Internet likes cats and arguing, but this one's whole career is a few seconds long and can be summed up entirely in the Cooks article. If there is a "star" in this "story", it's the killer, and he doesn't deserve a standalone article either. Nor the closet girl. All just pieces of the actually notable thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:InedibleHulk That is only because neither of them we're given names. Smarf, also, is the only character that was given an actual name that was mentioned in the entire short. The rest were just names of actors. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The killer is called The Killer. He's the only one with an IMDB profile. And it is empty, just like him. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "Coat" and "Pie", either. Some of Lars Von Trier's finest work. Matthew Kody Foster could've tried a lot harder. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:InedibleHulk you really shouldn't use IMDB as a point of reference. I haven't spent much time at all on IMDB honestly compared to other websites, but from what I can see it's like wikis; anyone (with an account) can go in and put in or change information at any time. A lot of the things I see on IMDB are particularly incorrect or are missing a large amount of information. I wouldn't trust your statements about any of these IMDB links as true, not because of you, but because of IMDB. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems to me that those in favor of deleting are actually agreeing that the content should be merged with Too Many Cooks (short). Can we agree on that as consensus? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for giving him a beefier spot in the article, but not just plopping this pile of words onto that one. Everything important he did in the credits and everything that's been said about him (in reliable secondary sources) shouldn't take more than seven sentences. As a bonus, this would be an excuse to write an entire Plot section there. Inquiring minds want to know about the button. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with a merger, but as noted above it would have to be a selective one, not just moving everything over. Sandstein 09:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not Delete Too insignificant to be a stand alone article, but worth mention in parallel articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to parent article. We don't keep articles on fictional characters simply because they got discussed on Twitter. We need significant coverage in reliable sources. The two sourced sentences about its creation can easily be merged into the parent if deemed warranted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Character does show notability. I'd also like to add that IMHO, it's articles such as this, that makes Wikipedia special, unique, and entertaining. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 01:55, 2 February 2016 (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.