Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2D (Gorillaz)

: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 all, with no prejudice against a merge discussion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[2D (Gorillaz)]]=

:{{la|2D (Gorillaz)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2D (Gorillaz)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|2D (Gorillaz)}})

These four articles are about the four fictional band-members of the band Gorillaz. As of now, the articles are unentirely unreferenced, and written in a completely in-universe style, without no indication of real world notability.—indopug (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Related articles:

  • {{la|Murdoc Niccals}}
  • {{la|Noodle (Gorillaz)}}
  • {{la|Russel Hobbs}}
  • Delete all for lack of out-of-universe info. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all as insuficiently notable. None of these four fictional characters has been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable sources. — Satori Son 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete all: the idea behind Gorillaz attracted attention, but the fictional cast only ever got passing mentions outside of band publicity (as far as I can see). This is like trying to write articles about the onstage characters of Kiss--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect all four articles to Gorillaz. These are plausible search terms. –Grondemar 00:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the below arguments, I would favor either Merge and redirect or Keep, in that order. Better sourcing definitely needs to be found for all four articles however. –Grondemar 03:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Do not Delete: There are a part of Gorillaz history. To Remove them is like removing famous fictional characters (i.e. Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, etc.) –Anthony12584 17:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep All* These are characters in a popular fictional band, a band which has won numerous awards for their music, (example,Clint Eastwood (song)). Their new album Plastic Beach has peaked at #1 in 11 countries! Deleting the characters we all know and love is like... I don't know.. Treason or something... ThatLankyDude —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.82.251.169 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - 2D at least, probably the others as well. I didn't check the others, and I didn't read any of the articles, but [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=2D+(Gorillaz&cf=all 844] GNews hits for "2D Gorrilaz" makes me confident that the subject is notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=2d+murdoc+noodle+russel+hobbs&cf=all 52] GNews hits for a search of all band characters, so Keep all. = Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Explain how the number of hits translates to notability separate from the Gorillaz band page. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep All: See Anthony12584's reasoning. The biography interviews the fictional characters, the music videos all contain these fictional characters, the interview promos are all by the fictional characters and the entire image of the band is a fictional wallpaper. No matter how much you want to push forward the fact that Damon is the mastermind of the band, the fact remains that no uneducated person thinks of Damon when listening to Gorillaz. They think the four cartoon members who to this point have enough development and backstory behind the Gorillaz project to warrant its status, and most publications that write interviews and such turn to Murdoc or the rest of the band and play along with the entire ploy. If the entire thing is seen virtual I think its pretty fair do's to represent that side as much while still sharing the facts established, such as who has been representing them in real life (i.e Morgan Nicholls as Murdoc, Cass Browne as Russell etc.). As for the info, most of the information represented are facts from Rise of the Ogre, they're just uncited. Carbo45 (talk) 09:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't object to the idea that the characters are a notable aspect of the band. I don't think they're notable on their own to warrant their own articles. The reason characters like Bugs Bunny or Batman have their own pages is because they have a substatial cultural impact covered by scores of relibable secondary sources. Anthony12584 does not draw an accurate comparison, because not all fictional characters have independent notability outside of the works they appear in. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

:In which case they should be in the article on the band - no problem at all with that. However, to warrant their own Wikipedia articles, they need to have achieved significant coverage in reliable secondary sources - that's not the band's publicity, and not fansites. There are academic papers on Batman and the Mouse, there are books, there is a body of work unconnected to DC or Disney. Show me that for these guys (and it might exist - I just can't find it) and they can stay, and the articles can be rewritten.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete all for lack of out-of-universe info. Relevant out-of-universe material can be included in the article, but separate articles for each fictional character seems unnecessary. Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Carbo45. TorstenGuise (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all There is an article for virtual bands but you want to delete an article about virtual band members? It needs to be referenced and rewritten but dont just delete it.--Robnubis (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all There are articles about fictional characters and these Gorillaz fictional band members articles are not the exception. Giusex27sc (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS People, you are not getting it. The subjects of these articles need to demonstrate notability in Wikipedia terms. There must be significant coverage in third party sources that are NOT the band, NOT the record company and NOT fanzines. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge all and redirect the "biographical" details into the main Gorillaz article, clearly labeling them as fictional. —24.210.159.199 (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge all in an effort to give cruft fewer places to congregate. Slac speak up! 11:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all, there is far too much information about the band members to list on the main Gorillaz article, and with the release of Plastic Beach a lot of people will be looking for this information. Most of the information on these pages is accurate can be referenced either from the band's autobiography, interviews, or from their website. I'm not sure why no one has done this while editing the articles but the information is out there, I am a major fan myself and I can see nothing false on any of these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.213.2 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all, Some of the Gorillaz fictional information have been created by the Gorillaz Partnership, and some has been approved by their local record clients (EMI, Virgin, and so on).–Anthony12584 17:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all The substantial amount of info in the individual articles would not only not fit on the main Gorillaz article in their profiles. Not just that but the work put into them would be wasted. The article can find resources and label the profiles as Fictional characters in a pararell universe. Some reworking could be done as well to use proper wording on them and find more outside references. Not to mention the fact the reason there isnt many real world references is because there isnt many interviews that are actual real ones. They are looked at and seen upon as actual beings in a sort of second dimension. If you actually did look around almost no one really ever talks about them from a non-fictional standpoint because of this. As such I stand by my Keep All. Edit: Morphed my keep for clarity.User:Dobat User Talk:Dobat 9:00 EST 11 March 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC).
  • Keep (first choice) or Merge (second choice). While it's unusal for bands to have characters like this, I see no reason we should treat them differently than we would the central characters of a successful TV show, or a series of hit movies or bestselling books. Gorillaz is after all a fictional universe of its own, with three bestselling albums, lots of singles, DVDs, a book and even a live show. So the problem isn't lack of material. Finding third-party sources is a problem, but not in my opinion an insurmountable one. Martin Roach's book "Damon Albarn: Blur, The Gorillaz and Other Fables" ({{ISBN|0955282284}}) would be a place to start, as would the innumerable articles on Gorillaz--Noodle recently did an in-character "[http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/us-reconnects-with-the-hot-gorillaz-guitar-player-201033 interview]" in US Weekly. And that's just scratching the surface. I have no objection to a merge, but at the same time I don't see how that would benefit the encyclopedia. The content itself is perfectly relevant and valuable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all--Theo10011 (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep all--per Andrew Lenahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieran95 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

: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.