Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Drago


 * 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. Also, AfD is not cleanup. No prejudice against future merge/redirect discussion, which should take place on the talk page. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT  drop me a line 06:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ivan Drago

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a character from a single film that largely simply reiterates the parent article. There is probably some room for expansion in detailing any symbolism or negative reception towards the character's Russian heritage and overall personality, but that could easily be explored with a few paragraphs in the reception section of the film rather than requiring an entire separate article to list fictional boxing statistics. TTN (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * keep - was a major character in a major film at the time. I suspect there will be more out of universe commentary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As I said, I believe such information does exist, but does it warrant eight paragraphs of fluff, most of which are regurgitating information from the main article, instead of a single section in the main article? Any controversy on the portrayal of the character can be summed up similar to The Hunger Games (film), and any production information can easily fit within related sections. It's sort of like giving the unnamed main character of Fight Club an article simply due to the reception of the plot twist even though all the info fits cleanly in that article. TTN (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No it's not - TTN how old are you anyway, are you old enough to remember when this came out? It was a Big Deal. The main thing is here is that you have your idea of a more stripped-down wikipedia as opposed to my (possibly over-)inclusive one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How are they not similar? You could easily take much of that information from the Fight Club article to build something for The Narrator that is very similar for to the "ideal version" of a Drago article. The main similarity is that the details of the articles are going to be largely similar to the "ideal versions" of the film articles. They're not going to contain much of anything unique, as they are not independent of the films. It would have to be a character that has become so ingrained in popular culture that people know of them before their single film appearance (and I certainly can't find any quality articles matching that criteria). People are going to remember Drago as "the villain in Rocky IV, which had potentially negative bias towards Russians" more than "the Russian guy who fought Rocky, inducing a number of criticisms about his portrayal." People are going to remember The Narrator and Tyler as "characters involved in an generally unexpected, iconic plot twist in Fight Club" rather than "characters symbolizing x theme." While not an actual requirement for an article, it's generally going to require multiple appearances in multiple mediums to garner enough independent information to form sections differing from the parent articles. Assuming Rocky IV was Good or Featured, the information in the article was suitable, comprehensive, and not weighing too heavily on the character of Drago, and there currently was no Drago article, would you support a split? TTN (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends - if I was a super-keen Rocky fan and I found more info than fit concisely in the article on the corresponding Rocky movie, then yes I'd split out. BTW My bad re fight club character, I misread it initially and hadn't realised who you meant, so yes it is a good analogy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks well known in Rocky movies.  NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep A major character in a major film, discussed in great detail in Friend Or Foe?: Russians in American Film and Foreign Policy, 1933-1991, which is already referenced in the article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But do existing sources preclude the main film article having sections that would enhance it should someone actually work on it? The references all point to some form of detailed section (Themes, Controversy, Symbolism, or something of that nature) that would bolster the main article rather than repeat the info on another page. It's probably possible to get a decent number of paragraphs by discussing the attitude of the Russian side in its entirety from their training to the event itself rather than even just the personality of this character. If it appeared that the character would be receiving too much weight in the article, I would say to simply work on this one instead, but a paragraph in Production/Casting and a few in the resulting other section would be perfectly fine. Here are a few Featured examples of films where characters could easily be split out from other sections if someone really wished: Fight Club, Barton Fink, Eraserhead, Kahaani, 300. Instead, all relevant details are collected within sections, allowing for a more cohesive article. TTN (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "the nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion" as the nomination seems to be arguing for merger into the main Rocky article rather than using the delete function to make this a red link. Warden (talk) 09:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anything needs to be merged. The sources within the article are only there to cite primary biography information for whatever reason, so there is nothing that needs to be placed into the main article. I'm only arguing for the future potential of the main article rather than the limited potential of this article. TTN (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So, go work upon the main article, adding the paragraphs you envision, and then get back to us when that's done. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not attempting to force any improvement on the article, nor do I feel particularly interested in doing such a thing. I'm trying to have this article deleted citing the fact that it does not actually cover a substantial topic and that any pertinent information belongs within the parent topic much like any other potential single film, non-breakout character. It's the same argument I would use if Rocky IV was featured and someone wanted to split out an Ivan Drago article without the character receiving undue weight. TTN (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Google news and Google book search show the name appearing all over the place. This character is discussed outside of the film, being a cultural icon, and parodied in other notable series.   D r e a m Focus  15:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rocky IV. (There's a possible merge of information, but really, all that is key appears to already be in the film article). The name is a searchable term so deletion doesn't make sense, but I also am not seeing sufficient notability  - once you strip away all the primary information - that justifies a standalone article. Really, in its current state, there are 4 main "sections": the lead is the only one that has out-of-universe information that should be present in Rocky IV; Bio + Plot effectively are duplicating the plot of Rocky IV and are unnecessary, and Personality is flat out original research. (I will go ahead and add that adding infoboxes that make it appear the character is a real boxer is really really a bad idea). A glance through sources suggest that the notability of the character is really about the notability of the film and specifically the relationship between US /USSR relationships at the time of the film's release, a factor about the film than the character.  Basically, all that is appropriate details on Igor that is not duplicating the plot of Rocky IV and not OR is about 2-3 sentences long, and Rocky IV is far from a long-enough article to prevent merging if one feels those details aren't already there.  DF's point on cultural references above, from my random picks, suggest that it is not the character alone but the movie that is being parodies (Igor, outside of a context that includes Rocky, doesn't seem to be a standalone parody target, and even then, that's not significant coverage).  --M ASEM  (t) 05:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes the sniff test as a lasting cultural icon. The fact that this piece is written like Wikia fan cruft doesn't help the cause, but I feel sure there is scholarly commentary on the Drago character as a cinematic manifestation of the cold war. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being a cultural icon, without sources to back it up, is not a reason to create a stand-alone article = it still fails the GNG (it does however suggest a redirect is completely in line). I agree that there are likely scholarly articles on Rocky IV and the Cold War, but Drago is not treated as a separate entity from that consideration - he's part of the "package deal" of the imagery of Cold War Russia that the film gives. --M ASEM  (t) 16:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep 30 years later, still a notable cultural icon and arguably the most familiar Russian cultural stereotype of the Cold War era. Reliable sourcing doesn't appear to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your second source is a graduate thesis so unless the author is a notable critic, its not an RS. The first barely touches on Drago from an out-of-universe standpoint. The last source is the type that I've pointed out before: that while Drago is called out as a symbol of Cold War USSR at the time of the movie, the representation of Drago is nearly inseperable from the discussion of the movie itself - Drago is just one figure of every other Russian character involved to show the cold efficiency that resonated with critics. Drago himself is not separately notable from this. --M ASEM (t) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Where do you base that premise on about graduate theses? That generally means they have been researched and reviewed by a teacher/professor etc.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been through the process. The rigor in fact checking and review for thesis is far far looser than the peer review for academic journals (also, this appears to be a masters' thesis, and while the process varies from school to school, the only review that may have taken place was the author's professor/mentor, and not multiple people). Further, there's no sources used in that section, so that's mostly the author's interpretation, which I'm not saying is right or wrong, but simply lacks any weight as a student's thesis. It would be far different if the work was summarizing others' opinions before adding their own, but even then we'd then turn to others' opinions. Even if I take that as an RS, Drago is barely touched on, and again what's there (in google's preview) is better situated for talking about the cultural aspect of the movie being about Cold War USSR right in the middle of the real Cold War, Drago being just one facet of that image. --M ASEM (t) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this article is deleted, then the article on Clubber Lang should be deleted as well. He is also fairly well-known as a symbol of the Cold War. -- Another n00b (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2013 (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.