Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation: Difference between revisions
→Comics and animation: Adding Captain kenny and Shadow spider |
Archiving closed XfDs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation/archive Errors? User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/DeletionSortingCleaner |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Detwiller}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Detwiller}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Harrison (comic artist)}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Harrison (comic artist)}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building}} |
Revision as of 19:37, 27 June 2010
Points of interest related to Comics on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do |
Points of interest related to Animation on Wikipedia: History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
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.
This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to Anime and manga, as well as webcomics.
Purge page cache | watch |
Template:ArticleAlertbotSubscription
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
{{{linktext}}}
|
|}
- 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Captain kenny
- Captain kenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely non-notable topic, see this Google search. From the makers of Shadow spider, by the way. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of any notability. JIP | Talk 06:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto'. —I-20the highway 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the following reasons: per above (non-notable), and possible hoax. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another good reason WP:NFT should be a speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and WP:SNOWBALL. (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - seems to be a WP:MADEUP violation. Claritas § 15:43, 28 June 2010 (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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shadow spider
- Shadow spider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable —I-20the highway 01:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This thing doesn't even exist on Google. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain kenny. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of any notability. JIP | Talk 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 04:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Jclemens (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and WP:SNOWBALL. (Emperor (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2010 (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 Nexus (comics). Any sourceable information can be merged, as the article history is left intact. The theoretical existence of hard-to-find sources doesn't necessarily warrant keeping a completely unsourced, stubby separate indefinitely. If substantial coverage in reliable sources can be demonstrated, this can be spun out again in the future. ~ mazca talk 11:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judah Maccabee (comics)
- Judah Maccabee (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite the claim on the article's talk page that sources exist for this character, the link provided displays a search that mostly turns up sources for the historical person Judah Maccabee, the First Comics character Judah Maccabee. This character has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reliable sources exist for this character. For example The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide by Frank Plowright and The Comic Book Hereos: From the Silver Age to the Present by Will Jacobs and Gerard Jones. Finding sourcing for this character is difficult because of the historical figure of the same name (who has also been the subject of comic books) but sources being difficult to locate doesn't mean they don't exist. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Search for the name and the comic the character was most featured in. [1]
- SUPERHEROES FLAUNT THEIR JEWISH ROOTS $2.95 - Miami Herald - NewsBank - Dec 9, 2006 "Judah Maccabee a 1980s comic book character who's also calledthe Hammer of ... the Book of Esther read the Nexus comic book series featuring Judah Maccabee ..."
Can't read the entire thing without paying. But it did get coverage there, and in the books found by Otto4711. Dream Focus 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In The Comic Book Heroes: From the Silver Age to the Present it says, "Nexus gained a new partner—an apelinke alien sporting a mohawk haircut—and the comics gained one of their most original characters. Judah Maccabee—hero, professional wrestler, gourmet cook and self-proclaimed ajudicator—is an explosive bundle of humor, rage, appetite...". This sort of treatment in secondary sources, which many a comics topic lack, is what is needed to write an article. Perhaps the nominator could take a look at this article; Pixie (Morlock)? Abductive (reasoning) 10:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Nexus (comics) from which it is currently a WP:SS breakout. I can't find additional sources, nor the full text for any of the three listed above. No objection to a keep if someone can source the article to offline sources. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article was never part of Nexus (comics). It was created at Judah Maccabee as a redirect to Judas Maccabeus in 2003. In 2006 I started the article for the character, which was then moved to Judah Maccabee (fictional warrior) and finally to its present name. Otto4711 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Otto4711 and Dream Focus. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Nexus (comics). I really cannot see significant coverage in these sources. They appear to be single sentences in comic book directories. The history of whether it was broken out from the comic article in the first place or not is irrelevant - it's how best to treat the material now that counts. It would easily merged, and makes more sense as part of the comic article. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Nexus (comics) per WP:PLOT and WP:BDK - there's little significant coverage in reliable sources of this character, and the article is essentially excessive in-universe plot coverage. Claritas § 15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Nexus (comics) per Claritas. SnottyWong chatter 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was about to close this as "keep" but I have a suspicion that I'll get my talk page blown up if I did that (ditto if I closed "merge"). The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. My own opinion is that the content currently in the article would fit nicely into Nexus (comics). (except the part where he likes to bowl) However, if there are ample sources to write a comprehensive encyclopedic article with additional content besides plot, then I would have no problem with this as its own article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are compromise options - merge it to a section in "Supporting characters" on the Nexus article and then if people improve it to the point it needs to be split off to its own article then people can start a discussion or close as keep/no consensus and return to this in 6 months to see what improvement has been made and then start a merge discussion. (Emperor (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Merge to a section in supporting characters (the first option I mentions above). I'd tend to favour this as there only seem to be passing mentions of the character in the Google Books search and it is unclear what could actually be used from them in the article. Plus, as I say, this option leaves the door open to splitting off the section in the future if/when notability can be demonstrated (a lot of minor comics characters are failing on notability and I'm working on starting lists of minor characters to act as a merge target, this seems to fit this general plan). (Emperor (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liz Allan
- Liz Allan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character who has received no significant coverage in reliable sources - written entirely in an inuniverse style, and little encyclopaedic content to merge elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG - rejected PROD. Claritas § 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - per Notability of Fiction's "Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria". This is a well developed article whose topic has appeared since September 1963 in the Spider-man fictional world. A compendium already sources this article and either Spider-man, Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and or Marvel Comics can supply the reliable sources needed for this article. The subject gets ghits as she was Peter Parker's love interest which means that the more reliable and verifiable URLs should be added as secondary sources or citations. While notability is not transferred, the creators (Lee and Ditko), Marvel Comics and Spiderman are notable. Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Criteria applies as Spider-man has appeared in book form which is a subcat of this AfD. Therefore, by knowing that Lee, Ditko, Marvel Comics and Spiderman are notable, deriative works or terms that merit an article that would not fit into the main article because it is a large topic, are also presumed to be notable by NBooks Criteria #1, #3 and #5.
- WP:FICTION isn't a policy or guideline. You may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED. Claritas § 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Nominating this article for deletion is just like nominating Commissioner Gordon for deletion. And don't say other stuff exists. My point is that they are both very important to a popular superhero (in Gordon's case, Batman). Both characters have also been adapted numerous times including in shows and movies. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't feel like looking for sources, but trust me that's she's notable. She first appeared in Amazing Fantasy 15, and every bit of that comic has been dissected ad nauseum in secondary sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This character is noticed at length in this encyclopedia and so the character's notability is established. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an independent reliable source. There's enough coverage of her, per WP:PLOT, at List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Claritas § 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The author of this work is independent of the original author while the publisher in this case is a excellent guarantee of reliability. Trying to wikilawyer away substantial sources of this kind is contrary to common sense which is an essential ingredient of any guideline. The source is fully compliant with our principle of verifiability and so there is no case for deletion. The list that you suggest as an alternative provides no sourced information about this notable topic and so does not meet the requirements of our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if Comic Book Company X produces a derivative work on Comic Y by Author A, published by Comic Book Company X, which is written by Author B, then Character Z in Comic Y is now notable ? It's not independent if it was a derivative work produced by the same company - as Comic Y in almost all cases wasn't written by a single author anyway. Per WP:PLOT, excessive plot summary is completely unnecessary.
- The source is fine for our purposes being reliably authoritative and independent of the subject. The subject in this case is a fictional character who, by definition, does not exist and so there is no improper COI. Per WP:N, independence means avoiding stuff like "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases. The source is not promotional, it is explicitly encyclopaedic and so is excellent evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if Comic Book Company X produces a derivative work on Comic Y by Author A, published by Comic Book Company X, which is written by Author B, then Character Z in Comic Y is now notable ? It's not independent if it was a derivative work produced by the same company - as Comic Y in almost all cases wasn't written by a single author anyway. Per WP:PLOT, excessive plot summary is completely unnecessary.
- The author of this work is independent of the original author while the publisher in this case is a excellent guarantee of reliability. Trying to wikilawyer away substantial sources of this kind is contrary to common sense which is an essential ingredient of any guideline. The source is fully compliant with our principle of verifiability and so there is no case for deletion. The list that you suggest as an alternative provides no sourced information about this notable topic and so does not meet the requirements of our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an independent reliable source. There's enough coverage of her, per WP:PLOT, at List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Claritas § 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by default I can't say I agree with anything much suggested above, but since this is at least a marginally important bit-player in a major comics series (but a non-entity in terms of offshoots) then this character at the very least belongs in a character list like List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Characters like this do belong somewhere so deletion shouldn't really come into it. Said merging is best done with the aid of sources as part of maintaining the appropriate list, so until someone decides to open discussions to that affect it's best left IMO. Someoneanother 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Comic sources are annoying. All the good ones are in books that aren't google searchable, and the rest are about recent stuff. Single recent issues can pass NOTE, and famous characters with 40 year histories can require going to a big city library. In any case, here's a ref that would take us halfway to establishing notability for an article on Liz Allan in Ultimate Spider-Man #119. There's another that goes on about her hair color if you want, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Peregrine Fisher's source. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since there's no significant coverage demonstrated, WP:BKD is quite clear that the article should either be merged or deleted. Claritas § 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage has been demonstrated. Please see WP:IDHT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, where ? The encyclopaedia isn't an independent, source and Perigene just suggests that there are probably sources, and doesn't actually demonstrate one. Claritas § 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is perfectly fine and the relevant guideline has been cited in support of this assessment. All you've produced is your personal opinion - not a scrap of relevant, independent evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BURDEN, you're the one who's supposed to look for evidence. The Marvel encyclopaedia is not an independent source- the category of independent sources "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and Marvel Comics are affiliated with their fictional characters - I made a reasonable effort per WP:BEFORE to find something third-party, but there's nothing to be found through Google. Claritas § 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An independent source has been provided. This source is necessarily about the subject but this is not affiliation in the sense meant. Your absurd interpretation would exclude any sources written by subject experts because they must necessarily have a working relation with the topic - mathematicians writing about mathematics &c. The point of independence is to exclude promotional material such as people writing about themselves. This is not what we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's to do with the fact that they are published by the same company, and likely written by the same people as the comics, and provide nothing but in-universe coverage of entities. Claritas § 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In-universe coverage is not a basis for deletion; it's a style issue for cleanup. The fact that it is published by the same company does not in and of itself prevent it from being a secondary source, in that it summarizes and/or comments on the original primary sources of the comic book stories, nor does that in and of itself prevent it from being a reliable source. Your dismissive "Likely written by the same people as the comics" shows 1) that you haven't checked yourself, you're just assuming and 2) that you haven't really paid attention to the subject matter that you're dealing with—a character that has been published in serial fiction for decades in multiple titles, and adapted into other media. At any rate, the point of an AFD is not to persuade the nom. It's clear you persist in your original opinion, and insisting on that opinion as the final word in response to the crowd of contrary commenters does not magically generate a deletion consensus. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, where ? The encyclopaedia isn't an independent, source and Perigene just suggests that there are probably sources, and doesn't actually demonstrate one. Claritas § 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per keepers above, but it does need cleanup and out-of-universe development. For a 48-year old character associated with one of the most significant comics properties, creator commentary and analysis of her role in the story should be out there somewhere. postdlf (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2010 (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 Transformers planets. redirecting but leaving histiry incase additional material is merited in the main article Spartaz Humbug! 06:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paradron
- Paradron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a fictional planet from a single episode of The Transformers (TV series). Non notable. Rm994 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to List of Transformers planets. Significant enough to at least be mentioned. JIP | Talk 06:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per JIP. Jclemens (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for the sake of a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- while a merge would ordinarily not be a bad idea, I note that in this case it is not appropriate. This is because Paradron is already mentioned in sufficient depth at List of Transformers planets, and because there is exactly zero sourced content in this article so none of it is usable. Reyk YO! 03:20, 6 July 2010 (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 List of Arthur characters. T. Canens (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Ratburn
- Mr. Ratburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The other Arthur characters, other than Arthur and Buster, have been deleted/merged/changed to a redirect. I see no way how this character is more important than Fracine or Muffy Crosswire. There also appears to be a lack of sources, and is written in a mostly in-universe perspective. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close this is a request for a merge and redirect, not a matter for AfD. Just do the merge. As far as I can see no one has tried it... Hobit (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never said I wanted this to be merged. This article has no cited information, and has no real-word coverage. Just deleting this entire article (and maybe making it a redirect) seems the best course of action. Of course, that's just my opinion. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. Many faults but not AfD.--Technopat (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I said lack of sources I meant NO sources. Whatsoever. Unless we find sources, can we even MERGE the information? Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point, but again, that's what unref tags are for. Not AfD. --Technopat (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe there are no sources. I've seen the show and read the entire article. It's completely in-universe, and I don't think they're are ANY real-life sources. Thus, it fails notability. Thus, I'm nominating it for deletion. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. I'd redirect the article right now if someone would give me a target. Is there a list of characters, or should we go to the show itself? The redirect would retain the history, so material (such as it is) could be merged over later on if sources are found. Ignoring the show's website (which lists this character), I've watched the show with my kids and can confirm that the character exists - that's good enough for me as far as listing the name on a list of characters, or some similar option. Anything more in-depth would require proper reliable sources, which are lacking (though the books might hold some value, there). On point of procedure, this didn't need to go to AFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Arthur characters. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge kind of a questionable AFD since it seems to hint that merging would be suitable. But may as well discuss it here. Support merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2010 (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 Flash. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarro Flash
- Bizarro Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Merge to The Flash. This article is of no notability, is badly structured, and only a couple of articles link to it. ArtistScientist (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Flash Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Merge to The Flash as a suitable way to cover it. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:57, 29 June 2010 (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. any editorial merge and redirect discussion can continue on the talkpage. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massachusetts Academy (comics)
- Massachusetts Academy (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was prodded due to lack of 3rd party references. I thought it better dealt with at AfD. Artw (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please see WP:BEFORE. It recommends improvement before deletion. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —--moreno oso (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the concern is that there are no third-party references (and thus significant coverage in independent sources) available.
Any non-cruft content can be merged with another X-men article.Claritas § 08:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep - per Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria. This is a well developed article whose topic has appeared for 29 years in the Uncanny X-Men fictional world. A compendium on either X-Men or Marvel Comics can supply the reliable sources needed for this article. Then, the subject gets ghits which means that the more reliable and verifiable URLs should be added as secondary sources or citations. While notability is not transferred, Marvel Comics and X-Men are notable. Wikipedia:NBOOKS#Criteria applies as X-Men have appeared in book form which is a subcat of this AfD. Therefore, by knowing that Marvel Comics and X-Men are notable, deriative works or terms that merit an article that would not fit into the main article because it is a large topic, are also presumed to be notable by NBooks Criteria #1, #3 and #5. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:
- Fictional notability does not meet real notability.
- Non-independent sources cannot be used to substantiate notability - see WP:N
- The fact that we can't fit all the information into the main X-men article suggests that there's way too much trivial plot summary here of no encylopaedic value at all.
- Also, you might like to read that any argument based on Ghits is generally frowned upon
You're mistaken. Claritas § 16:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per moreno oso. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep PROD'er recommends a merge, so there are no current editors arguing for deletion. Minor but longstanding element of a large notable fictional universe. No opposition to editorial merge, but this AfD is not necessary at this point. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The user who put the prod on this article also put the prod on another comic book article on Liz Allan to which just removed becaused the article does meet the notability requirements. He was nominating it for deletion for the same reason on this article. I did explain he could explain himself on a certain talk page but he hasn't responded so I feel like he is just randomly putting prods on certain articles. As for this article itself I do agree with moreno oso. Jhenderson777 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2010 (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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Albion (Marvel Comics)
- Albion (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character(s) who fail(s) WP:N. There's simply no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources for either of them. Notability isn't inherited from the comics they appear in. Claritas § 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as already covering multiple characters. Per Albion_(disambiguation), it's clear that there is going to be difficulty sourcing this without hitting false positives, for example adding "pendragon" to the search just gives tons of false positives. Thus, lack of evidence cannot be reasonably interpreted as evidence of lack in this case. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and, interestingly, per JClemens explanation of his keep. As he rightly points out there are no RS asserting notability, and it seems that it is unlikely any can reasonably be found. Therefore by policy it should be a delete, with no prejudice to recreation if sources are found in future. Verbal chat 20:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete tried to WP:Verify Notability but couldn't find reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (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. T. Canens (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Detwiller
- Dennis Detwiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I can't find substantial, independent coverage on this person. There's lots of stuff by him, but not a lot about him which suggests that he's prolific but that this hasn't translated into being very influential. Reyk YO! 00:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A game designer is notable if they have created notable works, which this person has done. Dream Focus 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was interviewed in Examiner.com but I can't link to that interview because that website is on the Wikipedia blacklist right now. Dream Focus 00:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Well known and influential figure within the RPG world. I've added a number of sources and will continue to source and expand the article. Artw (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Most reference are about games he worked on and mention him or interview him, however there are no references that highlight him as a developer. GtstrickyTalk or C 14:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sourcing appears to be sufficient now. BOZ (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Notable based upon Origins Awards, publications, and refs.—RJH (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage in sources, all non-primary sources are trivial mentions. SnottyWong communicate 04:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has written and illustrated a number of notable books for RPGs and is well-known in the RPG world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a winner of multiple Origins Awards. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per all the reasons cited above. Hooper (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable based on awards. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - created award-winning work and it can clearly be expanded into a well rounded article. (Emperor (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO and arguably also WP:GNG. Claritas § 15:58, 28 June 2010 (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 no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Harrison (comic artist)
- Mark Harrison (comic artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DELETE. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N, with a distinct lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well established british comicbook artist with a long history of work. Article could do with some better sources but is esentially sound, and has sources sufficent to meet WP:N (Lambiek etc...) Not seeing any particular BLP issues Artw (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- six sources, of which none are sufficient to meet WP:N. There's two blogs, one thing that Harrison wrote himself, a passing mention on some comic that Harrison could not get published and has had to self-publish online. The least insubstantial of these sources is a single paragraph on the Lambiek thing, and just looking at that site makes me doubt its reliability. Reyk YO! 00:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If someone's work is notable, then they are notable for creating it. As for coverage, searching the news archives for his name and "comic book" I find some results. [2] The Washington Times one can be used to verify he is the comic book artist who did work on the Ultimates first issue. Of course that information can be found on Marvel's official website, listing the credits. The Altanta Journal article seems to be about some of his work. Its pay-per-view so I can't access it, only the summary listed in the Google news search. Dream Focus 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. Someone's work being notable does not necessarily equate to the person being notable. Reyk YO! 01:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure the Atlanta Journal article is not about him, FWIW. Plenty of other sources out there to add to the article though. Artw (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Washington Times piece does appear to cover his work (I'd guess Glimmer rats or Durham Red) but access looks tricky
- Delete per Reyk. The sources in this article do not establish notability per WP:N. SnottyWong converse 04:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Reyk and Snottywong, there's simply not enough coverage for him to meet the WP:GNG. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE either. Claritas § 13:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Artw. BOZ (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications please leave me a note on my talk page and I will withdraw this nomination. "Comiclopedia", "Comic Book DB", and a bunch of other blogs and directory sites don't really pass muster. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While databases (and other tertiary sources aren't a sing of notability, as their remit is clearly to include as much as possible) Lambiek and their Comiclopedia is reliable and inclusion there can be seen a sign of an artist's importance (as they don't try to be comprehensive, focusing on the bigger names), especially for European artists where coverage might not be as extensive as American artists. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- If this person has been the subject of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications please leave me a note on my talk page and I will withdraw this nomination. "Comiclopedia", "Comic Book DB", and a bunch of other blogs and directory sites don't really pass muster. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm still working on digging out the sources - there is a solid interview (in print and not online as far as I can tell) and good coverage in Thrill Power Overload (about the history of 2000AD) - there are also a pretty impressive review [3]. I would like to see more on his concept work but that should be enough to get a well rounded article out of this, Lambiek helps as I mention above (there is also a mini-profile from John Freeman (an expert on British comics) which summarises his importance: "a stunning talent whose work towers above many other fully painted art strip creators" [4]). io9 called Loose Cannons "the best sci-fi comic that you've never seen" [5]. I might suggest a move to Mark Harrison (artist) if this is kept as "comic artist" isn't really in line with WP:NCC (although there are a few others around). (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep, exactly as as per Emperor. Vizjim (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2010 (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.