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 merge and redirect to Austin Powers in Goldmember. While there are substancial numbers for keeping the article the issues of notability and reliable sourcing havent been addressed. According to WP:FICTION The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop.. There isnt any substancial coverage in relaible sources of "Goldmember" in the articles linked during the afd or the from those already in the article Gnangarra 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goldmember[edit]

Goldmember (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is about a non-notable character (as being a character in a hollywood movie does not necessarily make you individually notable) that has no references or notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition which should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep lead villain in a motion picture named after him. I think that meets WP:N. Doc Strange (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a likely search term, it makes more sense to turn the article into a redirect for Austin Powers in Goldmember than to delete it, if it is not notable. J. Spencer (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep major character in very notable film. BJ^Talk 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are many less-notable movie characters who have articles to which no one has objected. Sensiblekid (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not a valid argument. TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Keep, because the article is about a notable fictional character. Sensiblekid (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why was this even nominated? Tavix (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you have no reason why it should be kept? Because admins will (and should) ignore replies like yours since you aren't offering any reason. TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that people instincts were correct; there are secondary sources out there. Their arguments should have been accompanied by sources, since instinct is not a reliable source. In the end, it's always about the sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per everyone, but Doc Strange in particular if I had to pick, I guess. Maxamegalon2000 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes he was one of the villians in the movie, but that's the only thing this character is known for. The article also cites no sources and is written in-universer (so it violates WP:V and WP:INUNIVERSE). TJ Spyke 06:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Which is not a reason for deletion per WP:EP. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I found many mentions of the character in reviews of the movie. [1] Ebert [2] [3] [4] [5]. Basically the reviewers hated the character, but that is irrelevant. The article needs cleanup, and these sources added. For those of you who argued to retain the article above, my trick to finding these sources was to go to rottentomatoes.com and open up the reviews. It is much easier than a Google search. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough for notability, we need how he developed the character and stuff like that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope: being discussed at all is sufficient to demonstrate notability. You're asking that it fulfil WP:WAF, which is not a guideline that covers deletion reasons, rather than WP:FICT. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the sources do more than mention the character, they talk about Myers' inspiration from the Goldfinger character, describe him physically, discuss his role in the film, and review Mike Myers characterization of him. They are classic secondary sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable enough for an article, though if I'm honest, instinct says that this article should be called Goldmember (character) and Goldmember should redirect to the film of the same name (or a disambig page). alex.muller (talk) 11:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- All you keep voters except AnteaterZot, please re-read the nominating rationale as you are ignoring it, I am not asking for your assurances it is notable, I am asking for some references, at this point some concept and creation style info on how the character was conceived and performed. That is what will keep it from deletion, not a horde of keep votes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The keep "votes" you decry are just as sensible as all those "delete-not notable comments that show up in most AFDs. Double standard you want to apply, don't ya?VivianDarkbloom (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect The character only appears in the one film and the majority of the article is just repeating plot points from the film. The character is covered more than adequately in the film article. I'm a big fan of Austin Powers/Mike Myers, but I don't see how anyone can claim this character is notable enough to justify his own article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. ——Quasirandom (speak) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Only repeating plot points is not a reason to delete, but rather per official policy a reason it needs to be expanded with critical responses to the character, to demonstrate his notability. Note also that how Meyers developed the character is not necessary for keeping the article, only for whether it meets the criteria for being FA. Not fulfilling WP:WAF is not cause for deletion. Not meeting WP:FICT is, however, and AnteaterZot has more or less demonstrated this. I'd be happier with more in-depth coverage, though, so I'm a weak keep. —Quasirandom (speak) 19:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources exist and the character is notable. Being unreferenced isn't a sufficient reason for deletion; the article must be impossible to reference or clean up. Rray (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect . Insufficient real-world significance to merit an individual article per WP:FICT. There is nothing here that cannot be covered at the main article. Eusebeus (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete/Redirect Per WP:FICT, fictional elements (e.g. characters) should be covered in the work of fiction they appear in, almost always independent of their own notability. Goldmember is "just" a character in a movie, and (t)his article shouldn't exist until it has become too long for the main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep you must be kidding me. (jarbarf) (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a friendly reminder, most admins will ignor comments like yours since you are just voting keep without offering a reason why. It's no different than just saying "Keep" and signing. TJ Spyke 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I've added a reference for the inspiration of the character, not sure if it's really enough though.RMHED (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable title character of major motion picture. Alansohn (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I like Goldmember, hes cool. -- 213.112.91.114 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Alansohn has eloquently put, this is a notable title character. We write articles about notable title characters, this one is no different. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alansohn--Cube lurker (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The majority of the article is plot retelling, with a production detail that would be equally suited at Austin Powers in Goldmember without having a separate article character. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A title character in a blockbuster. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 09:07, 4 January 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.