Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murdoc Niccals

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 Gorillaz. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murdoc Niccals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. References are WP:PRIMARY and profiles and social media. No real sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 09:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice there is now a Merge tag back on Noodle. scope_creepTalk
  • Keep The Gorillaz article is already lengthy, at 144,000 bytes. It doesn't nead five articles worth of content merged into it. Seperate articles make reading easier, especially on mobile where an increasingly large number of people access Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Length isn't a notability criteria in Afd. scope_creepTalk 18:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a criteria in deciding when to split an article, and an article being too long is a valid criteria for splitting even if the subsequent articles wouldn't meet notability requirements on their own. Garuda3 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See also WP:PLENTY Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would some sort of List of Gorillaz characters page be a potential solution?
That said it's difficult to see what really needs to be said beyond a couple of sentences about the fictional members of thr band, who are at the end of the day a promotional gimmick.
Murdoc Nichols is the band's fictional whatever player. He is sinister. [A couple of citable facts about his design or whatever from secondary sources]. Swish swish bish.
Dunno, maybe I'm being a bit churlish because I like the tunes but have no interest in art school mockneys pretending they're cartoon characters, but I don't see the detailed fictional history of the band being worth THAT much space when most coverage of them only gives it passing lip service. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I !voted keep in the Noodle AfD finding some scholarly sources, but a merge to a character page may work out. My comment there: There is some groundwork to build a reception section from out there. The GScholar links provide a few hits like "'The Digital Won't Let Me Go': Constructions of the Virtual and the Real in Gorillaz' 'Clint Eastwood'" published in Journal of Popular Music Studies and the book Pop Music and Easy Listening, where Johnson spends well over WP:100W (an essay, I know, but a measurement I find sufficient) discussing the "techno Orientalism" anthropomorphized by Noodle on pp 18-19. Also "Virtual pop: gender, ethnicity, and identity in virtual bands and vocaloid", apparently unpublished, but worth scholarly analysis for a PhD thesis that has been cited at least four times, where Stark dedicates the entire Chapter 5 to discussing Noodle outside of the mentions in the greater discussion. Also, GBooks gives a good hit in Chapter 9 "'Feel Good' with Gorillaz and 'Reject False Icons'" from The Oxford Handbook of Music and Virtuality where Rambarran has a 1.5-2 pg section dedicated to discussing Noodle outside the greater analysis on Noodle's part in the song.
    Now, I haven't actually revisited these articles, but I recall them covering all the band characters fairly well beyond just Noodle. Food for thought on a merged band character list. -2pou (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Almost all references in this article are either primary sources or interviews/articles about the band as a whole, with only trivial mentions of this character specifically. Not enough to substantiate significant coverage. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2023 (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.