Talk:MacGyver the Lizard

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because it for a well known Internet celebrity animal with a large following and that has had numerous publications written about him, some of which are cited in the article. At this time the article is short, as I am still adding more, but the initial information and citations clearly show it is a relevant topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzymartin (talk • contribs) 06:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've declined this since there is enough here to pass A7 criteria, however this isn't really enough to satisfy overall notability criteria - which is fairly difficult to do with animals, especially ones that gain their notability via social media. Being popular (WP:ITSPOPULAR) won't give notability on Wikipedia and you need to be able to show where MacGyver has received coverage over a sustained period of time. A good example of how difficult it can be for animals to pass GNG is the Ikea Monkey, which gained national coverage but was considered to have received no substantial coverage over time. Offhand I'm honestly not particular sure that MacGyver has received enough coverage to justify an article at this point in time. This could change in the future, but it looks like his coverage was mainly from the last few months and was relatively sporadic, despite his fan following. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • It is my understanding that (WP:ITSPOPULAR) pertains to unverifiable, word of mouth popularity. The criterea under (WP:ENTERTAINER) (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following) I believe is clearly demonstrated by his large fan base and cult following. Ikea Monkey received a lot of coverage in a short period of time and then nothing afterwards because it was the result of short term news (WP:NRVE). On the other hand, Macgyver the Lizard’s recent coverage has been the result of already existing fan base recently reaching noteworthy size, not the result of any recent news event. In addition, there is additional coverage going back to 2012, it has just not been included as citations because it is of lesser quality than the more recent publications (example: not including this blog from 2012 Lizzymartin (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• The type of fanbase described in that criteria of ENTERTAINER would be something along the lines of the Rocky Horror Picture Show fanbase or Trekkies, where the fan following itself has received a substantial amount of coverage, enough to where they would merit an article on its own. (See The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, Trekkies for what I mean.) Having a couple thousand fans on social media would not qualify for that portion of the notability criteria and we've actually had people with millions of social media followers fail notability guidelines pretty solidly. As far as the coverage goes, you still need to establish where the coverage is heavy enough. From what I can see on the article, the coverage is all from roughly the same time period in 2016, so if there was earlier coverage it's really important for you to link to it. I will warn you, however, that blog coverage is almost never usable for notability giving purposes because these sources are self-published and undergo little to no editorial oversight that would pass muster on Wikipedia. Offhand I'm not really seeing much out there for MacGyver. I'd also like to ask that you not re-add the various social media links to the external links section, as these links are all available on the official website. This makes adding them redundant and also runs the risk of coming across as a little spammy/promotional. Wikipedia isn't a place to link to every place where the lizard has a social media presence and even some of the more visible social media personalities don't have a link to every social media account they have. I've given you a little time to find sourcing, but I think I might take this to AfD, as there just doesn't seem to be a lot out there as a whole. (I'm actually surprised that Arthistorian1977 didn't nominate it.) I'm sorry and I wish it was different, and this isn't me trying to be a buzzkill, it's just that I don't see a huge depth of coverage here outside of a smattering of coverage from a relatively short period of time. You've asserted that there is coverage from other years, but I don't really see it out there and the one link you did post is a self-published blog. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that this page should be deleted. The first thing I did when I saw this page, before I even read any of it, was to check the talk to see if there was discussion about deleting this based on notablity. I would go so far as to say that this lizard has no fans whatsoever, as there is a difference between liking something on Facebook and being a fan. I'm sure you would be hard pressed to find even one person who has any Macgyver the Lizard merchandise (as I'm sure none exists, which is also a good way to check for notablity as those who create "meme merchandise" are generally quick to try to be the first with new "meme merchandise"). I'm sure nobody spends a great deal of time talking about or thinking about this lizard, and pages like this only further my opinion that Wikipedia is quickly becoming an internet celebrity website. --68.187.69.65 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

'Background' section could use some expansion

It would be nice if somebody could look through the cited media coverage and expand on the Background section. They are relatively short, and this could be done with about 30 minutes of effort. I would do it myself, except I don't really want to have full responsibility for the entire article -- I believe it is healthier to have multiple editors. Lizzymartin (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2016 (UTC)