Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon Dynamite (Character)

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 DELETE. Bucketsofg 00:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Napoleon Dynamite (Character)

Napoleon Dynamite (Character) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete or Merge I don't feel the character should be described in a totally different article, but, if anything, should be covered in a section of the main movie article. Not every single main character in a popular movie should have its own article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

··*Yeah but Napoleon Dynamite is very popular and should have his own article, It isin't very Big right now but its going to grow. It should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean mc sean (talk • contribs). Comment-changed to Delete in view of most comments to date... (1) If it was indeed a stub as found and had not been developed any further in time I agree with nominator...(2) however the reasoning - it also depends to what extent the character has been described in the main article. (3) Due to the cult following of the character - if the stub had shown signs of development - expand tag would have been more relevant than afd - note debates elsewhere re the overuse of afd.... SatuSuro 01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)  :::Follow up comment - fair enough - I think someone needs to learn to sign with four tildes here.... SatuSuro 04:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The character has been describe enough in the main movie article; the best the character article could do is mimic all of that info exactly. I also feel that, regardless of its popularity, it doesn't deserve its own article, mainly because of what I said above: the film article describes him plenty. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 03:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Main article Napoleon Dynamite has more than adequate information on the character (including all information listed in this short article), and this article just creates an unnecessary disambiguation. Wait until the information in the main article is expanded before splitting off into subarticles. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• THERE!!! I improved the article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean mc sean (talk • contribs).

• Merge merge to the main article. Kyriakos 02:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete redundant. Artw 04:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to the film's article. --Dennisthe2 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge or redirect. Redundant. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant per WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete several TV shows and movie characters have their own pages but they're the product of multiple movies or episodes. All he did was appear in one movie so all that's needed is the movie's page. Quadzilla99 07:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant. MER-C 08:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, Napoleon Dynamite is already covered in the main movie article, GOSH!!! --Candy-Panda 10:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - As per above, he's covered in the main article, and the article itself isn't over 30KB, so there's no need to create a page for Napoleon Dynamite -   •The RSJ•   Talk | Sign Here 15:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an article about a charcter in a movie/TV program and most tv or movie articles and their charcters have there own article so I think it should stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tellyaddict (talk • contribs) 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

• • Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT, and note that the creation of character articles for other films does not set precedent for every (title) character in a movie. --Dennisthe2 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge Merge to the main article. Always best for minor characters. Retiono Virginian 15:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The main article covers him. Nothing that isn't in the main article is really needed. Incidentally, the word character in the title should have had a lower case c. Wryspy 19:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No reason to have a separate article about a character who is covered in the main article. Ronbo76 21:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - covered in the main article, and that's really all that's necessary. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to have a seperate article. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 03:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I disagree with the above. The character has been in the feature film as well as the short fillm that inspired it, a series of promos for a farm competition out in the Western United States, and a number of TV appearances as the character. Those things would be inappropriate for the film article, so a move to its own article is more than sensible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Regardless of all those appearances (which some are not notable, I feel), not enough information is known about him to make an article any larger than a stub. Also, just because a character is in a popular film doesn't mean he needs an article; I might as well go make an article about the conductor from the "Conjunction Junction" School House Rock show, if that's true. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 00:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't oppose it if you did, honestly. I think the appearance of the character in so many non-film contexts confers even more "notability" than meets the grasp of the movie article. You call them "not notable," I call them excellent sources. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Napoleon Dynamite. Could be a useful redirect if someone comes looking for the article. Anyway, redirects are cheap. delldot | talk 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No disrespect, but I'm quite confident that anyone coming to Wikipedia wouldn't type "Napoleon Dynamite (Character)" into the search field. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A movie is a movie, but the character of ND has already become a phenomenon rather than just a part of a movie, like Harry Potter. Wooyi 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • This is, about, the 4th time I've had to say this: Just because he's popular doesn't merit him for an article creation. You wouldn't be able to create more than a stub. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 05:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect. There's no content here that couldn't go into the movie article. I doubt that this article would ever go beyond stub status. Croctotheface 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I just added, in the words of Napoleon himself, a butload to this article. I think it deserves to live, and i will gladly write other articles on the other main charicters of this film.

• • Forgive my sarcasm, but WOW. That sure was a buttload! Sarcasm aside, adding section title is, in no way, a "buttload," as you so eloquently put it. Plus, you help prove my point even more that no relevant info can be found on him to merit an article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - completely redundant, and all the necessary information is in the main article. TheRealFennShysa 18:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely redundant. Netuser500 00:25, 31 January 2007 (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.