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. T. Canens (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG with a lack of reliable, secondary sources. The article is entirely sourced from interviews. A list entry is plausible, but does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it obviously fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, how/why is that obvious? Daranios (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article itself falls under WP:FANCRUFT. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see it that way, given that there is an evaluation how the character is seen and put on screen. But be that as it may, Fancruft is no reason for deletion. To quote the essay you put forward: "If the user comes across fancruft, an approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." Relevant for deletion is the question if the subject is notable, i.e. treated in secondary sources, no matter if these are already in the article or not. Daranios (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The character is treated directly and in some detail in Jacking In To the Matrix Franchise: Cultural Reception and Interpretation, The Matrix of Hip-Pop/Rap over Black & White Culture and especially Detecting Detection: International Perspectives on the Uses of a Plot. Those together satisfy WP:GNG. I am also not sure if the interviews are actually primary sources in this case, given that the movie is the primary source for the character. In addition, there are numerous sources which give us some character description, plot summary and small bits of analysis: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Lastly, the interviews provide some out-of-universe information on the character. Even if there were no other sources, I think it would be a loss, not a gain for Wikipedia to delete rather than preserve it in some way. Daranios (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Matrix is well-studied, with lots of published film criticism and commentary. I think that Daranios' sources are well-chosen, especially Detecting Detection. I have another published interview to add to the pile, from Starlog: "Keynote Speaker" (Jan 2004). I disagree that interviews with an actor about character development don't count towards the character's notability. The fact that there are multiple interviews in multiple publications discussing the character demonstrates that the character is recognized as notable. Publications don't typically interview every actor in a film; the interest is in the character. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: To clarify, when you say the article fails WP:GNG, how did you determine this? I ask because two of your more recent nominations read as "FANDOM-level fancruft without a single reference, making it WP:ALLPLOT and WP:OR. Only lists a bunch of minor enemies. Therefore, fails WP:LISTN." ([8], [9]). Not only is this a non-sequitor that doesn't reflect WP:LISTN, but the bulk of the nominations were subjective declarations of importance, and not deletion criteria. The delete vote above is equally unconvincing for similar reasons. Darkknight2149 21:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's best when an AfD discussion sticks to what's being said here about this article, rather than bringing in statements from a different discussion. The only thing that matters for the Keymaker article is the existence of reliable sources writing about the Keymaker. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I was asking for clarification. I appreciate your perspective on keeping things on topic. Darkknight2149 22:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on sources provided. I think taken together there is enough to pass GNG. I also agree that interviews work towards notability if they go into the creation, development, and/or reception of the character. Rhino131 (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it has encyclopedic information so is not fancruft and also passes WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think the reception here is borderline but keepable, which is why I didn't go for it half a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Architect (The Matrix) (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seraph (The Matrix) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega City (The Matrix) (2nd nomination)). The current Matrix-related articles are likely ok. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 27 October 2020 (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.