Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fix-It Felix Jr

Fix-It Felix Jr

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

Lack of reliable 3rd party coverage - there's YouTube stuff and fan blogs, and that's it. Notable as an item within Wreck-It Ralph, but not on its own. As there has been some edit warring, some clear decision seems desirable here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just added by the OP before taking a holiday: [1] - a bit of coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If kept, Fix-It Felix Jr. (ie. with a dot on the end) should be changed to point to it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This has been moved to a user page; meanwhile the actual title in article space (with a period in front of Jr.; this has no period) has been redirected since 2013 with nothing further, and this item up for deletion was actually for an item in WP: space as Wikipedia:Fix-It Felix Jr. before the main creator moved it to the non-existent user's main page. Should this actually be up in WP:MFD instead? Nate • (chatter) 10:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The user who created the article and opposed turning it in to a redirect moved it themselves when this AfD was created. Should the series of moves be reverted to allow the AfD to run, or should the article be speedy userfied/draftified and a redirect re-created? Iffy★Chat -- 11:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd. Someone who understands what actually happened there with the moves please take over - I just tried to revert one and only increased the mess, I fear. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is why WP:G6 exists, I'll see if I can fix the problem, and then add some tags so an admin can clean up the mess. Iffy★Chat -- 11:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tags added - when an admin deletes the pages, the User page can be moved and everything should be sorted. Iffy★Chat -- 11:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sorted. Thanks User:RHaworth. Iffy★Chat -- 12:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Fiction inspiring reality is an interesting idea. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a spin-off video game from a film. If it meets GNG (and I think this does, just about), we've generally kept such things. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roll on the 3rd party coverage guys, then I'm all for Keep :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that we have the nom figured out (thank you everyone!), I agree this meets GNG as a unique playable artifact of the actual film. Only thing I'd do is add the period on the end and move it there. Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wreck-It Ralph (and move to the proper period on the end (or maybe don't, I didn't realize that article already existed - 00:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)) I had initially been the one to just boldly revert to the redirect version, but when I saw this AfD and the keep votes on it, I decided to ruminate further on whether I think it needs a standalone article. After thinking... I still think it doesn't need to be its own standalone article. I don't think, from the sources I've looked at, that it's notable on its own, and even if it is, I'm not sure there's enough content that could be included in such an article to make a standalone article's existence make sense (as opposed to the same information being woven into the Wreck-It Ralph article, for instance). - Purplewowies (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I couldn't find any significant coverage from reliable sources outside of the already mentioned Venture Beat article. Probably best presented in its parent article anyways, in some sort of "Promotion" or "Impact/Legacy" type subsection. Sergecross73 msg me 03:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve it's like no one even looked for references. Kotaku has an article on it, as does Business Insider, as does Rock, Paper Shotgun. Weirdly, you can even play the game on ESPN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wouldn't say the Rock Paper Shotgun source counts as "significant" coverage; it's basically a short blog post and mentions the Unity game (mistakenly identified in WP's article as "Flash") as a sort of one-sentence afterthought. And the ESPN link is dead from looking at that source (the "account has been disabled"); I do think the game is still properly playable on its Disney page, anyhow. (I've looked into the (other) sources and I'm still not sure there are enough to firmly establish notability.) There's also the question of whether the cabinets with a playable game in them (as opposed to the just-plays-a-video cabinet at E3 that the article includes an image of and decides to call a "prototype") and the online game are or should be presented as the same topic (are they both notable? is either?). (I also believe it's important to determine whether any article that could be pulled out of this would be a WP:PERMASTUB and whether it's worth it to have it be separate if that's the case.) - Purplewowies (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Your "Business Insider" source isn't from them, but rather, a reprint of a write up from a website called Modojo, a website I've never heard of, and isn't listed/evaluated at WP:VG/S. That doesn't automatically mean its unreliable, but it's also not quite the "slam dunk" you're making it out to be either. The Rock Paper Shotgun source does not constitute "significant coverage" and would not count towards notability. The entire article is one short paragraph, and only the last 2 short sentences address the game itself - that's textbook "passing mention". The game itself being hosted and playable on ESPN, while bizarre, has no bearing on its reliability either. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Random note that I don't personally find the ESPN hosting that bizarre; Disney does own them after all. - Purplewowies (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fix-It Felix Jr. already redirects to Wreck-It Ralph so this malformed title should just be deleted. For the sake of consensus however, I will also say redirect is a viable option. It merits a section in Wreck-it Ralph but doesnt seem notable enough for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely - I defend this article, because I have proof of it, and in the words of Jules Verne: "Everything that man imagines becomes a reality" and video games aren't the exception. Fix-It Felix Jr. must be in the Post-fictional category, Because it has been seen hundreds of times by many people who hadn't imagined that this game really existed. Deletion means giving inferiority to the game, this one deserves to have an article separate because of it's influence. The article to be maintained to give you more improvements and more truthful and notorious information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will show evidence to continue keeping the article - Well, I think I won't continue deleting negative comments and I will continue to strengthen the positive ones to continue keeping the article. One of the best ways to know better the presence of this game, is through video captures, as in this example: Fix it Felix Jr. Arcade Machine (FULL SIZE) Look! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofihombre (talk • contribs) 19:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Proof that something exists isn't proof that it's important enough to have a whole article devoted to it. (And for that matter, a redirect or delete !vote isn't inherently negative; we are all trying to suggest what we think is best for the encyclopedia, after all.) - Purplewowies (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Not enough notability. --Tarage (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]