Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:20, 12 August 2022

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Comics and animation. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Comics and animation|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Comics and animation. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Article alerts are available, updated by AAlertBot. More information...

Scan for comics AfDs

Scan for animation AfDs
Scan for webcomics AfDs
Scan for comics Prods
Scan for animation Prods
Scan for webcomics Prods
Scan for comics template TfDs
Scan for animated series template TfDs

Related deletion sorting

Comics and animation

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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: L. Looks like a plausible search term so I'm choosing to redirect this page. If you believe it should be redirected to a different target, please discuss this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L-Ron

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. There don't appear to be any substantial reliable sources talking about the character, only minor mentions and unreliable fluff articles like CBR. TTN (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources is presented in the current article, and searches bring up very little aside from brief mentions in plot summaries. I would probably also be fine with a Redirect to the article on Justice League International, the series where he debuted and made most of his major appearances in, where he is already briefly mentioned. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma - just fictional cruft and FANDOM material with no basis in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a List of DC characters or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever list seems most apropriate. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any indication that L-Ron has received any secondary coverage at all. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:23, 15 August 2022 (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.

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 redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies#Modern Age. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sorrow

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

Fails WP:GNG. The character appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources, only unreliable fluff articles and otherwise minor mentions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content to List of Justice Society of America enemies where the character has an entry. Unfortunately there is not enough for the character to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a few listicles, but there simply is not enough coverage in reliable sources to prove Johnny Sorrow's notability. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies#Modern Age, where he is already included with a description. Searching for sources does not turn up much outside of the above mentioned listicles and a few brief plot summaries. As he already has a full description in the main list of JSA enemies, that would be the preferable target for a redirect. As a sufficient description of the character is already present on that list, and this article does not contain any sourced non-plot information, I don't think a Merge is necessary, but the history will remain if anyone thinks there is additional information that should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the targets proposed above. No sources suggests notability outside in-universe, all we have are plot summaries. That's not good enough for an encyclopedia (an entity different from fanpedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies#Modern Age. Article does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2022 (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.

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 redirect to Nickelodeon Animation Studio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Animation Podcast

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Only available sources are trivial mentions or unreliable. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, and Internet. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Nickelodeon Animation Studio. It only proves its existence and not its notablity. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Also seems pretty blatantly promotional (I wouldn't be surprised to find that this is a copyvio too): " The podcast gives voice to creators and talent from inside and outside of Nickelodeon who brought to life some of the most innovative, hilarious, and heart-tugging animation in the history of television and animation." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 11 August 2022 (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.

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 The Order of the Stick. I see a consensus that this article should not be left as is. In terms of the outcome, merges have both a numerical and a policy-based advantage. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Order of the Stick characters

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

It does not appear that there is enough independent coverage of the characters themselves to provide notability for a separate article on the characters. The main article on the comic can provide coverage of the key characters. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to The Order of the Stick. The lead of this article appears to be reasonably well-sourced (although a bit more reliant on primary sources than I'd like). The only secondary source cited in the entire rest of the article is this, which appears to be an unreliable blog. I found some sources providing brief descriptions of the characters, such as this from Screen Rant, but that only provides a level of detail comparable to what's already at The Order of the Stick#Characters, leaving this article as the usual mass of fancruft in need of a prune. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks, as there appears to be a lack of reference support for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Pretty much all sources are primary, except for a short Comics Alliance citation. I don't think there's really anything to merge here that isn't already in the main article. It even already has an extensive character listing there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a redirect seems unnecessary, as the only incoming links to this page are from the proposed target, a list of lists, and 8 DAB pages. The main page already contains a list of characters, so the major ones are covered. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a matter of external links. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a tool that shows those? Because a google search for the page's url turned up very little non-Wikipedia content. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as Maplestrip. Hekerui (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to The Order of the Stick per the above per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The_Order_of_the_Stick#Characters. I am mildly surprised this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, IMHO it's a pretty popular webcomic. But as usual, this is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:ALLPLOT, or mostly. Some content can and should be used to enhance the main article. Don't hardelete, WP:SOFTDELETE (since, I stress, fragments of this can be used to enhance the main article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add "independent coverage of the characters", which is not hard to find. For example this review concentrates on characters Mithoron (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe lesser sources, but Order Of The Stick: Degrees Of Good And Evil analyses characters and this review talks about their versions in The Order of the Stick Adventure Game: The Dungeon of Dorukan Mithoron (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that review concentrates on the characters. It contains a brief list of them in one paragraph, and then another paragraph with one to two sentences of coverage each on the main hero and the main villain. The fist "lesser source" does not appear to be a reliable source, and the second one seems to be little more than a bunch of passing mentions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at this a day later, I do see what you mean about the review providing significant coverage of the characters. Personally I still feel a merge is warranted unless enough secondary sources can be found to go into more detail than already exists or would belong The Order of the Stick#Characters without relying on primary sources, whereas all that could be sourced from the above review is a sentence analogous to the last paragraph in the lead, and maybe one or two more sentences in the Roy and Xykon sections. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of independent coverage of the characters on the Web. See discussion of Roy here. https://thecinnamonroll.co/2014/03/20/webcomic-review-the-order-of-the-stick/

Also, I'd be interested to know how much independent coverage of characters in many TV shows.

Consider this article, which has chalked up 102 edits since 2007, and which contains 0 citations: List of Felicity characters RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument at AfD. Feel free to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Felicity characters * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed in this AfD meeting GNG per my appraisal. A merge isn't going to be a horrible outcome either, but I don't think policy requires it be enforced as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mithoron and Jclemens, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You !voted twice (2) WP:ATD is inapplicable here since the discussion is largely between merging, which is already an ATD, and keeping at this point (3) WP:PRESERVE is inapplicable here since merging is one of the list of actions to consider instead of deleting there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge per Pppery and others. I would expand the paragraphs at the main article on the Order themselves, especially, and add in some of the longer-running or more pivotal supporting characters such as Celia. But I don't believe the near-exhaustive coverage given them here can be justified. —VeryRarelyStable 11:38, 14 August 2022 (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.

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 redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Francis William "Chas" Chandler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Chandler (character)

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

AfD last year ended in no consensus, and the article hasn't improved since. Last time the keep votes consisted of one editor asserting that "television and movie appearances suggest notability", and another (topic banned since then from participation on deletion discussions) presented two sources, one of which seems to be just a passing mention in a sentence ([1]), the other one is more in-depth but still limited to the plot summary and of dubious reliability (bamsmackpow). (WP:RSN discussion about it did not attract any comments sadly). Sources present in the article don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV or are outright PRIMARY (comic books themselves). I recommend redirecting this to List of Hellblazer characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hellblazer characters - The first comment in the previous AfD says, in part, the nominator is abusing Prod/AfD to try to force someone to work on the article. Starting this one with the article hasn't improved since just reinforces that sentiment and comes across rather tone deaf. Pointing out said user is topic banned is needless grave dancing. I'll ping @Etzedek24:, the other user you reference, for you. The closing comment recommends an alternative to deletion, which I agree with, but I can't help but wonder why this wasn't proposed as a merge on the article page instead of being brought to AfD. The proposed target currently contains zero information on the character in other media, so a straight redirect is insufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Francis William "Chas" Chandler, the relevant section already has enough description of the character, merging anything else would only add more in-universe information of questionable importance. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You believe adding any mention of film and TV appearances would be in-universe information of questionable importance? I think it would be the exact opposite. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - What to merge can be decided later on, but this fails to meet GNG in its current form regardless. I don't see any current potential for improvement. TTN (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2022 (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.

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 redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Alexandria Safe-Zone. Sandstein 09:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia (The Walking Dead)

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

I've prodded it a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was removed without any rationale offered by a user since topic banned from deprodding. We then held a merge discussion that ended with no consensus (Talk:List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Merge_secondary_chacters_with_little_reception_here). Given the reception here is still a single sentence, I think it's time for an AfD, with my recommendation being a redirect to the List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on my comments on the talk page, I doubt that I searched for more sources on this one. I'm going to find the time to do that today, it just takes some time to go through each of the episode pages to look for sources, but fortunately as a supporting character (albeit an important one) she didn't appear in as many episodes as the major characters, nor would she have had a very important role in many episodes - based on what I recall of some of her final episodes, she should have some kind of sourceable reception information. It will most likely be a question of how much to merge, ultimately. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more substantial sources are found. What's in the article is fairly trivial, so I don't think it meets GNG. TTN (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2022 (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.

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. After article improvements, character deemed significant enough for standalone article. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron (The Walking Dead)

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

I've prodded it a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was removed without any rationale offered by a user since topic banned from deprodding. We then held a merge discussion that ended with no consensus (Talk:List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Merge_secondary_chacters_with_little_reception_here). Given the reception here is still a single sentence, I think it's time for an AfD, with my recommendation being a redirect to the List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The two articles cited in the reception section don't look to be enough to hold up the article. Unless anything additional is brought up here, I don't think it meets GNG at this time. That character list needs to be severely pruned, so I'm not sure if anything should be merged. TTN (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this article will be salvageable as he is a major character on the series. It will take me some time to make a deep dive for sources, and I won't be able to start it until tomorrow at the earliest but I should be done by Tuesday at the latest. BOZ (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, we are in no hurry. This can always be relisted at least once when undergoing a rewrite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so it has been. I got about halfway through what I wanted to look through, will resume most likely next week. BOZ (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per TTN. Insufficient sources to write enough of an article with real world context, and fails WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the development and reception section has been significantly improved during this discussion and now contains commentrary about the character from multiple reliable sources. Would the nominator have still nominated the article in its current rendition ? imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 Probably not, the article has been significantly improved since the version I nominated. I'd withdraw my nom but unless @Jontesta changes their vote, procedurary this can't be speedy closed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm still not even done going through the available episode reviews, I've just been a lot busier than I expected lately. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved with sources regarding real-world significance, and nominator has indicated willingness to withdraw nomination. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements. Any additional issues can be handled through normal editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2022 (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.

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Justice (comics)

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

I've prodded this 2 years ago with "How is this comic book location notable? Sources are the usual PRMARY for PLOT, plus list of appearances in media. It was also made into two or three toy sets. Nothing here seems sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article?". The PROD was removed without any comment, and the article is still a combo of plot summary and list of comics and related media this appears in (which is pretty much a bulleted point version of plot summary). Can this be saved? My BEFORE suggest this is unlikely... (all I see are some minor plot summaries). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Architecture, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge to Justice League#Headquarters The detail that it was based on CUT is interesting and relevant, but the level of fannish detail is far from encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Justice League#Headquarters - My assessment of the independent notability of the location is the same as the nominator's. However, its a valid search term, there is a perfect target for a Redirect, and that very small bit of sourced material on its real-life origin can be merged over there, as said by Mangoe. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Justice League#Headquarters. If the end result is merge, I ask that the closer of this discussion start a sub-section for the Justice League's respectful headquarters and have the information for the Hall of Justice be placed under the established Hall of Justice section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG based on sources in article. Bad articles need improving not deleting. AFD is not cleanup.★Trekker (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is not met by any source. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Justice League#Headquarters. The topic doesn't appear to have coverage that can allow it to meet GNG. What's in the article seems to mostly amount to fluff. TTN (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Justice League#Headquarters. I found no evidence of the subject meeting GNG. There doesn't seem to be much to merge, but a merge seems a better option to me than a full-on delete. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Justice League#Headquarters. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Keep. New sources have been added by BD2412 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [2], [3] appear to be two non-trivial independent RS mentions about the edifice itself. "Hall of Justice" is used as a synecdoche for the Justice League itself or as a simple gathering point so often that everyone can be forgiven for not finding these--it took me some digging. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is a discussion of a single bubble, an effectively saying "oh, it's open for public/tourists and provides revenue, smart". Right. But that's not SIGCOV. Ditto for the other source, which compiles passing mentions about dungeons underneath the hall. The problem is we still don't have any source that discusses the importance of the main structure itself. Notability is not inherited, and a discussion of minute trivia related to the Hall (tourism, dungeons) is hard to generalize to the notability of the Hall itself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your bar for SIGCOV is simply unreasonably high. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as there isn't WP:SIGCOV to prove WP:NOTABILITY for this as a separate topic. Many sources treat this as a synonym for the Justice League itself and the others are only passing mentions. Jontesta (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect? Or merge-redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to create a WP:CONSENSUS. Agree with Rorshacma that this doesn't meet policies for a stand-alone article, but redirects are cheap, and editors can find a WP:DUE amount of information to be included at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a uniquely notable fictional location. BD2412 T 01:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in the article (including a reference that I just added to Robert Greenberger, Justice League: 100 Greatest Moments (2018)) suffice to provide WP:SIGCOV. It has appeared in various iterations of fictional media, and in the real world as a toy set. At least one real-world building has been modeled after the fictional one (I have also added reference to this), which also indicates architectural significance. BD2412 T 03:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What substantial information is to be found in the 100 Greatest Moments? Looking at the Google Books search, I see plot-only trivial mention after trivial mention, so I don't see how it can be said to provide significant coverage. There appears to be no significant commentary on the structure at all in that source. There doesn't appear to be anything currently in the article that necessitates the current level of depth. Justice League#Headquarters can easily be expanded to two or three paragraphs to include the minor development info and sufficiently describe it in expansive enough detail relative to its weight. TTN (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For substantial coverage, I would first point to the CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice". That certainly goes beyond being "plot-only". In any case, we would need to keep the current title as a redirect to maintain the edit history of content copied over per the GFDL, but I see nothing on the page that should immediately be deleted, so we would end up copying over the entire thing into an article-length section inside another article. BD2412 T 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular does an article that simply regurgitates info found elsewhere bring to the table? The only real world information in the article currently attributed to it is a quote that seems to originate from the older of the Cincinnati Enquirer articles. It appears that source could be completely removed without any lost context. My opinions on listicle-farming trash like CBR not counting as a reliable source aside, I don't see how an article created simply to capitalize on search results is in any way significant coverage if it provides no real original commentary on the topic.

This does not reflect the reality of what the sources say. The assertion that The 100 Greatest Moments provides "plot-only" trivial mention is incorrect. That source also states that the building was "based on Cincinnati's Union Terminal", which is obviously not a "plot-only" detail (unless an in-universe discussion of this design element can be provided), identifies Al Gmuer as the designer of the building for the comics (also not a "plot-only" detail), and characterizes the reaction of fans to the structure (also not a "plot-only" and obviously significant to notability). The CBR article by a well-known writer in the field is not a "listicle" and is a reliable secondary source. Of course it contains information that can be found elsewhere, that's why we use secondary sources. However, the article also describes—not found in any other source that I have seen—the artist's eventual displeasure with having to draw the building due to its complexity, which is also obviously not a "plot-only" element. There has not been a good-faith examination of the sources. !Votes premised on rejecting permissible sources because some editors wish they were impermissible should be discounted. BD2412 T 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what good is supposed to come from pointing out that the referenced content amounts to minor production details. That's textbook trivial coverage. The quote, "In the long run, I hated that building...The way it's designed, it was not easy to draw. I had nightmares about that damn building" comes from this 2009 article (or was at least was the first to use the quote if it originates elsewhere) that is already cited, so that means there is no benefit whatsoever to the CBR article. Though again, that is a minor production detail doesn't help the topic meet GNG or necessitate a full article on the topic. Even without this back and forth on what consitutes reliable and signficant, the amount of real world information cited in the article is extrodinarily trivial. It can all fit within the parent article in a small single paragraph. TTN (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the CBR source is an originally arranged piece by an expert in the field. It is a reliable source, and it does provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Of course, the details are about a fictional structure, which is no different from having an article on the Death Star or The Simpsons house or Hogwarts. If such details were automatically trivial, we wouldn't have any of these. BD2412 T 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if it provides nothing new, then what good is the article in fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage? If you can remove it from this article and lose no context, what purpose does it have? In having nothing new to bring to the table, that solidifies its place as a pop culture fluff piece that exists solely to drive clicks. Primary production details are fine article content, but they are not GNG-fulfilling content. They can be placed in the most relevant space, which would be the main article's section on the topic. To sustain an article, we need a good deal more in terms of commentary and cultural impact. TTN (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The construction of an actual physical replica of the fictional building is sufficient cultural impact. Multiple of the sources note that the structure is well-known to fans of the comics, a considerable population. BD2412 T 19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be arguing "notability" vs WP:Notability. The building is undeniably something culturally recognizable, but that does not currently extend to meeting GNG through reliable sources. As of this time, everything in the article amounts to a few minor sentences that together fail to meet the SIGCOV threshold. Articles don't need to have 15 paragraphs of cultural analysis to meet GNG, but this still isn't cracking more than a paragraph of mostly minor production details. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to reach that position, you would have to imagine that CBR and the Cincinatti Enquirer are not reliable sources. There is no such determination at WP:RSP. With the right attitude, one could dismiss every piece of information in Wikipedia as "trivia" and delete the whole thing. BD2412 T 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue I am seeing is that few sentences are not really WP:SIGCOV. Still, there may be something to MERGE to Cincinnati_Union_Terminal#In_popular_culture, which, strangely, doesn't even seem to link back to this article (although it does mention the connection). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 22 23 sources in the article, including ~~five~~ six that I have added within about the past 48 hours. There are, obviously, many more sources in the world that discuss the Hall of Justice to some degree, but suppose we do a source analysis of the 22 23 that are currently in use. BD2412 T 04:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, please tell us which of these meet SIGCOV. To avoid miscommunication, for each source you think meets SIGCOV, you provide a link and a number of sentences and paragraphs about this source, plus a quotation of your choice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo is that an article is kept unless there is a consensus for deletion, and this consensus must be supported by policy. The burden is yours to make the case for deletion. Why don't you tell us which of these sources does not meet SIGCOV, with a number of sentences and paragraphs. I have actually just added a 24th source, which spends three pages, a total of fifteen paragraphs, describing just the Kenner/DC Hall of Justice playset. BD2412 T 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. The ball is in your court. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The substantial claims of the article are supported by inline citations to reliable sources, several of which contain multiple paragraphs on the subject of the article. That burden is clearly satisfied. BD2412 T 19:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of verification, yes. The burden of notability, not as much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cited WP:BURDEN. I merely quoted what it says. BD2412 T 04:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Cincinnati Enquirer piece reposted here is typeset at about 40 paragraphs, but since almost every sentence is its own paragraph, it amounts to about 50 sentences. It might be quibbled that the article strays from the comic book topic, but the title is literally "Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice…". BD2412 T 05:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source is arguably about the Cincinnati Union Terminal as much as it is about Hall of Justice. The section "Union Terminal in peril", for example, is all about the real, not comic building. I still see no reason to split the 'Union Terminal in popular culture' section into a dedicated article. Other than a short paragraph about how the Hall was inspired by the real building, all there is is fancruft (plot summary and media appearances). A redirect will suffice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Arguably" cuts both ways. That section is 1/5 of the entire article. BD2412 T 19:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the rest is mostly about CUT, with only some mentions of HoJ. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The entire thrust of the article is about how the Cincinnati Union Terminal, despite being an unquestionably notable building in itself, is far less notable than the quasi-fictional building (quasi because versions of it have now actually been built) from the comics and TV series. The first nine paragraphs of the article are about the Hall of Justice (a paragraph noting similarities between the buildings is by definition about both); the last six paragraphs of the second section are about the Hall of Justice; several additional paragraphs of the article are as well. If you knew nothing about the Hall of Justice before reading this article, you would come away from this article knowing why it was designed, when it was designed, who designed it, how it was designed, what the editorial process was, what it looks like, how the designer felt about it, how an important segment of the audience felt about it, and some details of repeat appearances after its debut. BD2412 T 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the argument (and yours is not terrible), let's agree this source is ok. GNG does, however, require two good sources. Can you show me your second one for this? Again, one that meets SIGCOV and goes beyond a plot summary? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Before getting into that I am going to point out that in the past few days, I have completely turned this article around in terms of eliminated unsourced cruft, and providing a not-in-universe section about the origin and design elements. Compare the current article to the version at the time of nomination, and it's night and day. As for sources, there is no policy excluding the above-discussed Anthony Couto CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice", for this purpose. That is seventeen solid paragraphs on this subject. CBR is a permissible source and the author of the piece has been cited in published works in the field. The complaint that the article is derivative of content published elsewhere would knock out every biography of John Adams or history of the American Civil War that relied on recounting events previously recounted by others. It has no basis in policy, nor could it. I would also point to Greenberg's Guide to Super Hero Toys, which spends three pages and a dozen full paragraphs discussing a playset of Hall of Justice (which has various features of the building as depicted in other media). We could practically have an article on the playset alone, but I think it's best to keep the content together with other information on one of the most recognizable fictional buildings in the U.S., if not the world. BD2412 T 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not fully convinced, looking at the current distribution of votes it is likely this will be kept. Thanks for rescuing this (even if I'd like to see at least one more good ref, as I am not convinced Greenberg's is a RS). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please re-review the article as it has basically been rewritten.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BD2412's improvements and sources. SnowFire (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am satisfied with BD2412's work with finding adequate sources for the article. Haleth (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The difference between the nominated version and the improved version is considerable and substantive. User:BD2412 has improved both the sourcing and the encyclopedic style of this page. Nominator's reasonable BEFORE could not have forseen the considerable nerd-cred User:BD2412 has displayed in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest this discussion is a demonstration of how the AfD process has been being misused to bludgeon improvements, rather than being an evaluation of the potential of an article. WP:ARTN is explicitly opposed to such de facto requirements. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: Nevertheless, the outcome will be correct. BD2412 T 21:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Articles reaching the TNT threshold are often deleted, regardless of notability status, because even a redlink may encourage new article creation rather than leaving the page in the status quo; totally unreferenced and unencyclopedic. If someone then decides to improve it and invoke WP:HEY, that is their business, but there is no rush here. Nobody is insinuating a better version of such an article can't be made later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Zxcvbnm: Even so, if this article had been deleted rather than being rewritten, we would have lost the 1/3 or so that was usable, and remains there now, including previously underutilized references that contained additional background information. BD2412 T 06:22, 2 September 2022 (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.

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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantium

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

12 years since last AfD, our standards have risen, but this article remains, well, a fan-written plot summary, and rather short at that. Outside of said plot summary, we have an 100% WP:ORish section on etymology, and that's it. WP:BEFORE found a tongue-in-cheek paragraph in this academic source, and a bunch of short plot summaries and mentions in passing. This should certainly redirect somewhere but my BEFORE does not suggest that the topic of super strong materials in fiction is obviously notable. As such, Unobtainium#Similar_terms or Wolverine (character) is probably best. PS. Suprisngly enough (at least for me), vibranium is very much notable (see Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis, which I just added). I'd be very happy if we could save the adamantium article in a similar fashion, as I already noted, my BEFORE didn't help here (unlike for vibranium). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Time, CinemaBlend, Inverse, Live Science, SyFy, Nerdist, some here, here, here Articles being in bad shape isn't reason for deletion, never has never will be.★Trekker (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not impressed. We have a plot summary (a lot of those, actually, including one in the form of interview with some artist), a bunch of fan speculations, and some reports of companies using this term in marketing. Plus articles where people are mentioning adamantium in passing like [4]. In other words, the usual assortment of google hits. Where is SIGCOV? Where is any significance shown (like what I found for the vibranium)? Go ahead, quote such content. As long as all we have is a plot summary plus few cases of the word being used in marketing, GNG is not met. PS. I do find it amusing that two of these sources discuss whether Wolverine's claws can cut through CA's vibranoum shield, and arrive at different answers. But fan speculations are not encyclopedic materials. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BATHWATER and per Trekker. While it is important to get rid of non-notable fictional elements, Adamantium is the proverbial baby in this situation, being an actually notable fictional material. The article is in bad shape (it may not pass GNG in its current state) but AfD is not cleanup and the effort should have gone into fixing the article instead by adding WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems reasonable to keep. Gusfriend (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can do better than an assertion (WP:ITSNOTABLE)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments. Pinging participants of the 2010 AFD who have been active this year: User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Jclemens, User:Postdlf, User:Rreagan007. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above sources, Evans, David. "Wolverine: The Force Behind His Train Lunge." Journal of Interdisciplinary Science, Volume 4 (2015): 90. (reproduced here) is a non-trivial academic (if perhaps whimsical) reference. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens But isn't it more about Wolverine than about the material? My point is that the sources we have for adamantium seem much inferior to what I found for Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what rule requires a source to be primarily addressing the topic? None whatsoever. GNG/SIGCOV addresses this. If you want to propose mergers on talk pages, fine, but if you want to use AfD to enforce a merger then you need to demonstrate that there's no policy-based justification for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material." speaks to the central argument of focus you raised. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This means that a few pages about adamantium in a chapter on let's say Wolverine are fine. But do we have few pages here? Do we even have a few paragraphs? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The standard isn't "a few pages" the standard is non-trivial. Look at the example (Bill Clinton being in a band in high school) in the policy for, well, an example. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This paper for the most part verifies the etymology section. So if there is original research, it is by no means 100%. The same source also draws another parallel to real-world materials ("Wolverine: The Force Behind His Train Lunge" compares adamantium and osmium), this time to its nature as an alloy. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The etymology section has been present in our article since at least 2015. The paper you link was published in 2018. I'm not saying it's citogenesis, which I'm not sure could even apply to this particular kind of material, but it's something to consider. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Wolverine (character). This is mostly an aspect of that one comics character; the appearances in other works are trivia. Despite third-party coverage, fails WP:NOTPLOT as a whole. Sandstein 19:14, 11 August 2022 (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.

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 redirect to The Incal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Metabarons Roleplaying Game

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

A pnp RPG based on a French comic book series. I've added the sole ref it has now, but (the ref) reads like a press release, and I couldn't locate anything better. No fr interwiki. Unless someone can dig better sources, a ~1 sentence merge with the ref I found and redirect to The Incal might be best? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, Games, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to The Incal, or Selective Merge. Current ref (ICv2) is probably RS, even so, it's a non significant press release. Found one, clearly non reliable ref. But at best, merging would give a single sentence info that isn't useful. (The press release might also be closely related to the publisher.) On Google, News, Books... no other RS could be found, though WP:ATD make it IMO sensible for at least a redirect, or very selective merge. VickKiang (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per VickKiang. Andrevan@ 07:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2022 (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.

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Templates for discussion

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 </noinclude>
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L-Ron}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Sorrow}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nickelodeon_Animation_Podcast}}