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. However, there are legitimate concerns over original research, the connectedness of various Igors to one another in the article's present form and sourcing. This may be worth revisiting if such problems are not addressed in a reasonable period of time.--Fuhghettaboutit 06:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Igor (fictional character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Much as I used to enjoy this article, it is a full-blown, serious original reseacrh `'Míkka 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but ruthlessly cleanup. Igor is such a classic character in so many formats that a well referenced article should be and could be written. Davewild 17:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "should be and could be written" is a good idea, but after this one deleted and encyclopedic sources of general research for this alleged stock character found. `'Míkka 00:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest of strong keeps this is a stock character /set piece in many films etc and needs to be here. Some of us just need to clean up the article. I will have a go, take a look in a bit:)Merkinsmum 17:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge of the OR and the list of examples. An examination of the stock character is suitably encyclopedic and references exist for it. A list of every hunchback named Igor or some variation of it is not. Otto4711 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thie problem is that if you delete all hunchbacks, what remains is an unreferenced OR. What we need is a reference which discusses Igor as stock character. All references are for individual characters, and the current artciel is a synthesis, whcih is disallowed in wikipedia. `'Míkka 19:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True lol. I've added some references, but all it really needs is severe pruning as the listing of Igors is quite obsessive- someone obviously loves an Igor to write all this.:)Merkinsmum 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pruned a bit.:)Merkinsmum 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup for now. It seems likely that an article can be written about this topic - but if it is not improved with sources in a reasonable amount of time consider re-nominating. As it stands it is almost completely OR. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There is no way to clarify which Igor, or if all the Igors are the same. It is inherently OR. Having the same name does not denote that the character is the same. If you want to have a page on a specific Igor, then that is fine. However, a page devoteed to the use of the name Igor in fiction is OR. NobutoraTakeda 18:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1][reply]
• Keep, it should be possible to source a complete article on this widely-recognized stock character (not always named Igor). --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is not always named "Igor" then the article is speculation from the very beginning. Someone just decided to write about "Igor" and started twisting and turning facts as they suit their nice Igorology. `'Míkka 20:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the connection between the same things with different names is made by a reliable source such as a film critic (I've heard they exist), then we are not creating "Igorology" although that's a nice band name. --Dhartung | Talk 05:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs substantial attention; I think the subject is noteworthy and has been the subject of numerous WP:RSes, but the article is not in the best of shape - poor quality and excess WP:OR is not reason to delete, it's a reason to be WP:BOLD and improve it. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual Igors are notworthy. I haven't seen a reliable source that says that each of the Igors are connected in anyway. Should we also add every non-hunchback character named Igor? Because they count under the generic "fictional character".

• Redirect to Son of Frankenstein where there was first a character of this description, a hunchback lab assistant to a mad scientist, with this name (although spelled "Ygor"). It is original research to claim that any assistant to a monster or mad scientist, even with a different name, even without a hunchback, is an instance of an "Igor." Wikipedia is not for loosely connected pieces of information that an editor thinks are related. Edison 21:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well written article on a stock character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the third party veriable source that he is a stock character or that all the Igor's are related? NobutoraTakeda 18:33, 17 July 2007 (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.