Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alotta Fagina

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 to someplace. Someone want to complete this please. Viridae ^Talk 11:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alotta Fagina

Delete. A minor character in the Austin Powers canon. While major characters like Austin, Evil, Nigel etc are notable enough for their own articles, characters like Alotta Fagina are just jokes and aren't that notable. I am also nominating the following related pages because for similar reasons in that they aren't notable enough for their own articles. They're minor characters who serve to tell a joke.

CyberGhostface 00:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is written well enough to remain in mainspace. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 00:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is she (or any of them) notable enough to warrant her own article?--CyberGhostface 00:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge All to Austin Powers series. Fagina's article is almost all triva with only a few sentences about this minor character. TJ Spyke 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The encyclopedia that aims to sum the world's knowledge. Information true. Information verifiable. Delete? does not compute. KEEP -- Drini 00:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, we should make articles about my cats because its still true.--CyberGhostface 01:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, do your cats have funny names and have they appeared in movies? ;) EnsRedShirt 11:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are your cats verifiable from external sources? Can we demonstrate NPOV for your cats? --Richard Daly 20:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I can provide 'true' and 'verifiable' information about them. And, since Wikipedia aims to sum the world's knowledge, I don't see why my cats should be left it. And yes my cats do have funny names...Cocoa and Thumbelina, to be exact. However, I am being fecetious as you might guess. A cat with a funny name is no more deserving of a wiki article than a running gag with a funny name.--CyberGhostface 21:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect merge into an Austin Powers article and redirect this page. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Austin Powers series; too minor a character to warrant a separate article, or all this unnecessary trivia. Ziggurat 01:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there are no sources given apart from the movie itself. And I very much doubt that there are any independent sources on the character which give more than a passing reference. —Psychonaut 01:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References added

Keep This seems notable as it has become a joke beyond the movie itself. As of now there are references to 4 independent sources, which discuss the name most specifically asa parody of Pussy Galore from the James Bond series. Alotta the trivia could be trimmed, but the topic is notable. --Kevin Murray 01:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of those sources only have passing references to the Alotta character. The first two are just comparision lists, of which Alotta is one of many. The latter two are generic Powers reviews which just happen to mention Fagina. Psychonaut makes refence to a lack of "any independent sources on the character which give more than a passing reference" earlier, and it applies here.--CyberGhostface 02:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that these are all passing references. Several discuss the parody of Pussy Galore, which is to me the most notable part of this article. The others confirm that this is not original research by an editor who watched the movie. This isn't an important topic, but keeping it is not an egregious foul. --Kevin Murray 21:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two are just lists comparing similar names, of which Alotta Fagina is one of them. The third article has one sentence that reads "In dated and unapologetically sexist '60s-style, Austin Powers can't claim Pussy Galore, but does boast Alotta Fagina, a cleavage-heaving role assumed by Fabiana Udenio". Ebert's review states "And, of course, those who remember Bond's adventures with Pussy Galore will be amused by his female antagonist this time, the sinister Alotta Fagina (Fabina Udenio)." So for both of those articles she's only mentioned briefly in passing.--CyberGhostface 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also took a look at the references and have to say that they are about as passing as one can get. They amount to about two sentences that deal directly with this character. Why a brief mention of Alotta in the main Powers article with reference to her parody of Pussy Galore is not enough I can't understand. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect-Merge into Austin Powers article and redirect these pages.
Keep - I tend to think that these characters are notable enough for an encyclopedia that includes popular culture. - Richardcavell 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:FICT, "Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."--CyberGhostface 02:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the nominator or the prosecuter? Stop trolling the comments. I know what the guidelines are, and I say keep it. --Kevin Murray 02:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a debate. As nominator CyberGhostface has every right to respond to comments regarding this afd. I'm sure he'll respond to your "trolling" accusations as well. Saikokira 03:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what a troll is? Because debating whether or not a character whose entire purpose is a play on the words "I have a lot of vagina" deserves her own article doesn't qualify as intentionally disrupting a site.--CyberGhostface 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry should have said pest, but trying to be wikipolite. --Kevin Murray 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing a great job with that.--CyberGhostface 19:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect all to Austin Powers series. -- Black Falcon 03:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At the risk of being accused of trolling by Kevin, how? Its not like its become a popular catchphrase outside the film's fans.--CyberGhostface 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I admit that my "weak keep" was based more in the "popularity" of the character than its "notability". So, unless notability can be established by additional sources, I have changed my official position to "merge all". Damn conscience----I thought I was finally rid of it back in Rome. After all, given the sort of things that took place ..... well, there's no need to delve into personal details . My unofficial position still remains very, extremely, incredibly, awfully, exceptionally, exceedingly, extraordinarily, fantastically weak keep. -- Black Falcon 06:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevin Murray. —Ocatecir ^Talk 03:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to an Austin Powers article or character list per WP:FICT. Suggest that the next time the nominator be bold and just merge them instead of taking them to AFD. Otto4711 03:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All that would start is an edit war between the people who wanted to keep the article by itself and those who favored the merge. And didn't you nominate all the Saw character articles for deletion when they could have been merged instead?--CyberGhostface 03:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep..definitely more notable than this.. --Iwazaki 04:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I can't see a reason to have a separate page when we could have a list of minor characters. There really isn't anything here other than a character specific plot summary, some OR trivia and a list of name translations which is not really encyclopedic content. The most of the keep arguments we see here, such as "more notable than this" and "It is true so it should be kept" are not very compelling. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AbstainCman 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (although most of the truly important information is already there) with the film in which she and the others appear. That the characters verifiably appeared is a fact, but not one that requires an article. Comparing anyone's notability with that of a randomly-selected individual is also not a compelling argument. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of characters in the Austin Powers series or similar e.g. minor characters. --Dhartung | Talk 05:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not at all impressed with the content of the article. There's not much here to be salvaged. Merge it to the main article. SubSeven 09:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as it is. Robinson weijman 11:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears well-written and informative. If merged with other "minor characters" the result will be too long and I see no reason to trim down what has already been written just to keep some deletionist happy. --Interesdom 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. The more fancruftier sections like trivia and quotes will probably go but the main article itself is no more than a paragraph long and probably won't be trimmed.--CyberGhostface 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - as per WP:FICT, this is a minor character and should be merged into the main article. -- Whpq 17:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into the list of characters. Savidan 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article - minor characters with minimal screen time, they are important to the film, but I can't see the benefit of an individual article for each one. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or merge; the importance of the Austin Powers series confers notability here, and there are some (marginal) references. — brighterorange (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge character names are at least appropriate for a redirect, and I have no objection to the content per se. But I think it'd be better as part of the main article. FrozenPurpleCube 23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect A part from people saying they like it it doesn't pass WP:FICT. She is a very minor character and the majority of the article is trivia and quotes. All of which can and should be removed in the merge.--Dacium 01:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to minor charchacters article after some article scrutiny. MURGH ^disc. 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it is better sourced than Noonien Soong that is given as example of a minor character worth keeping in WP:FICT. Any claim of use outside of fans does not appear to be supported. AntiVan 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep movie is very notable. SakotGrimshine 07:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the movie is notable doesn't mean that every character therein is. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all characters from a major movie are notable. She had something like 10 minutes of screen time and she only appeared in the first Austin Powers film. Given that it should be easy to fit any relevant information into the article on the movie itself. Really, only characters who have appeared in at least two of the three Austin Powers films should get their own articles. --The Way 07:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kevin Murray. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:39, 28 February 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.