Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethan Hunt

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. AfD is not cleanup, and it has been demonstrated that there is a lot of RS about this character. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence this fictional character passes GNG/NFICTION. No reception outside two unreliable list mentions. My BEFORE shows only mentions in passing/plot summaries/unreliable fansite discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lead character in a billion dollar film franchise, there's been plenty of material written about the character and, more importantly, the portrayal of him by Tom Cruise, including much material on the real-world production of the stunts that the character is known for. Yes, that does speak to the notability of the character, as real-world production aspects are exactly what should be added. Does the article stand to incorporate some of that better? Sure, and when I'm not so busy I'll work on it. But AFD is not cleanup. More importantly, the nom's WP:BEFORE must not have been very through, because even a cursory click on the link here yields plenty of material from quality sources specifically about the character that could easily be used. Jumping to deletion is a mission I chose not to accept. oknazevad (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Oknazevad, this article needs an overhaul, but not a deletion. Just a super-quick Google News search turns up multiple news articles focused on the Ethan Hunt character, and that's just scratching the surface of the multitude of possible sources going back a quarter-century when this $3.5 billion franchise was launched. (The DVD commentaries for the movies would probably also have a ton of great information.) Oknazevad's point about the stunts is a good one too; there are many aspects about this fictional character that could be touched upon when the article is overhauled. — Hunter Kahn 14:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources that Hunter Kahn gives show obvious notability. As Oknazevad says, the lead character of a hugely successful multi-film franchise played by one of America's most famous movie stars is going to get a lot of coverage, in entertainment media as well as general sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable with significant coverage from these sources:

Holding On: Mission: Impossible and the Myth of the Perfect Man
Contemporary Hollywood Masculinities: Gender, Genre, and Politics, pages 114-119 link
'Mission: Impossible': Ethan Hunt Is The Action Hero of a Generation
Screening Characters: Theories of Character in Film, Television, and Interactive Media, pages 267, 272-3, 276 link
Tom Cruise: Performing Masculinity in Post Vietnam Hollywood, pages 16, 39, 49, 127, 148 (at least) link
Sunday Reads: The Evolution Of Ethan Hunt, That Poor, Invincible Rag Doll Of A Man
On Film, pages 139, 148, 160, 168, 221 (likely more) link

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge or Redirect to Mission: Impossible (film series). Notability is not the main issue here, it's that this article is 95% plot summary and thus has been failing WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF#Summary style approach for over 14(!) years. It's obvious that no-one wants to work on this article, so remove it until someone does. (By the way, Benji Dunn and Luther Stickell would have been the lower hanging fruits to clean up the M:I character coverage.) – sgeureka ^t•c 08:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The in-universe content has now been purged from the article. The "main issue" no longer exists. You're invited to implement a source or two. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect Erik, I undid the removal of that content. I don't think removing it completely is appropriate, nor necessary. This article could and should easily be expanded to include more than just in-universe content, but at least some plot summary is to be expected in an article about a fictional character. Scale it back, maybe, but we don't need to ax it altogether. As for Sgeureka's remarks, I think it's a pretty weak argument for deletion. "It's obvious that no-one wants to work on this article" isn't how Wikipedia works; first of all, you can't really know that's true (plus we've already had at least one editor in this discussion express interest in working on it), and second of all, that wouldn't be a rationale for deletion anyway. The question is whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:GNG. The sources shared above indicate that it does, and any issues with the quality of the article are an argument for improving it, not deleting it. — Hunter Kahn 14:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My removal was to show how easy it was to actually address the so-called issue; something they could have done themselves. I also started an "Analysis" section. However, in the long run, I think the in-universe summary should be tighter and more personal. If anything, Mission: Impossible (film series) should have the longer summaries than this topic's. The character's article can link to that and focus on more character-specific details. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Main character of a major film series. Sources are available as stated above. The article can be improved, but that is not an argument for deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significamt coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified earlier in this discussion so WP:GNG is passed and there is no need for deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2020 (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.