Talk:Captain Flag

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Captain Flag article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Comics: United States Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

This page was proposed for deletion by Piotrus (talk · contribs) on 24 December 2020.

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 January 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Notability

This article needs to show us why this character is notable (significant, important). All we have is a plot summary and publication history. That's not enough (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most sensible thing is to merge or redirect this, for now. I was reverted while attempting to do so, but I might restore it if nothing comes of this. Avilich (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD ended with Keep. Most people said to keep it, you both stated why you thought it shouldn't be kept, consensus was to keep it. Dream Focus 18:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing rationale says without prejudice to merger, pending a talk page discussion. Avilich (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't do any talk page discussion, just tried to replace it with a redirect, and got reverted, and then posted above you might do it again. Any merge discussion would mean everyone who participated in the AFD would have to be contacted and told that what they said there doesn't matter, have to do it all over again, and the majority would say to keep it, not eliminate it through a merge. Dream Focus 02:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation to contact all AfDs participants. Whether it is best practice or not, I am not even sure, given some folks think contacting anyone from a specific group of folks may violate WP:CANVASS... shrug (although I generally think contacting as many people as possible is good and wouldn't object to someone pinging said participants). Anyway, I support merge but not just redirecting this - there is referenced content here that should be copied. For now, of course, a notability template is justified. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that after further reflection I have amended the AFD closure to no-consensus. There is still no prejudice to merging. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really to merge, so merge would be the same as delete, which there was no consensus to do. Dream Focus 15:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if there's no consensus to keep, and there's no consensus to delete, and you argue there is no consensus to merge, then we do nothing and nobody is happy? casualdejekyll 15:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those who wanted to keep the article are happy. Those who enjoy reading this sort of thing are happy to find it here. And those who don't like it aren't likely to ever find their way to it unless they are looking to something to complain about. Dream Focus 15:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I'm aware, everything going on here fits the established consensus on what to do when there is no consensus, so I guess it's over. Ties go to the defender. casualdejekyll 17:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right - but the game can be played again in few months, or years... and our standards do keep improving. If this article does not, well... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The no consensus amend was "on the grounds of poorer quality of argument on the keep side." So if the keep argument is poorer then the delete argument, then the delete argument is better then the keep argument, right? Am I understanding this wrong, @Stifle? It's important to remember that consensus is not a vote. casualdejekyll 15:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I looked at it afresh, the quality of the keep arguments was poorer than I previously thought it was, so I thought fit to amend from keep to no consensus. Nothing else. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, then everything's solved on your end. casualdejekyll 16:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: - Nothing really to merge is a strange comment from someone who voted keep. Is there some reason the names of the creators and the dates of publication couldn't be retained in a merge? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be merging anything. List_of_Archie_Comics_characters#Other_superheroes has one sentence already. You'd be deleting an article that just survived an AFD by turning it into a redirect, with nothing merged over. Added one sentence more over there and deleting the rest, is still a delete, not a merge. Dream Focus 22:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's information here, and it's moved over there, how is that not a merge? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to merge, propose a target and a reason. But at this point a BOLD redirect/merge is unwise. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hobit:. Sorry but I feel the tag is being honest. All these sources being used seem to be primary and don’t seem to help provide further info for the character. I ain’t going to revert but I do disagree with your opinion of it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've seen a lot of arguments about these sources, but "primary" is new. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see any worthwhile content on here and most of the good info List of Archie Comics characters would do better to provide. I see no notability proven and I usually aim for keep on this kind of topics. Also you guys maybe need to chill on having an indifference on a tag. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)→[reply]

Tag

We have a fair number of sources in the article. Those sources are independent and reliable. Could someone please explain how there is a real notability issue here? The objections I've seen are, so far, "it's primary" which I'm struggling to understand and arguments that sources covering fictional elements don't count as sources for WP:N. I'm struggling to see how either of those arguments are valid.

But even if you do believe that the sources aren't enough, do you seriously think that there are sources people can add that haven't been added? If not, what is the purpose of having the tag? Hobit (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to remember what all the technical terms of sources are. It’s possible that “primary” was not the word I was looking for. Although what I mean is that the sources are not independent of the topic. Usually they have to be. So far just listing books with no real world info regarding reception and development does not seems like a good start. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 00:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent isn't the word you are looking for either. Could you find a policy (or guideline)-based issue supported by WP:GNG or something similar? And do you believe there are other such sources of the type you are looking for? Hobit (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here and here should help. Maybe you could figure it out for me. Anyways the guideline you linked says the sources should be secondary to prove notability. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 02:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, primary sources would be something like the comics themselves. The sources in question are often more like an encyclopedia, which is not a primary source (but may not be a secondary source either--the terms aren't as clear as one might like). Hobit (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary isn't the major problem here, and we do have secondary or tertiary sources. But the existence of secondary sources is not sufficient. The problem is that they do not contain WP:SIGCOV, instaed they simply confirm, in passing or in WP:CATALOGUE-like entry that yes, such a comic book named after its superhero existed. Existence is not the same as notability, which requires that we show that the topic is significant, important, etc. by the virtue of someone saying more about it that it just existed. Please see WP:EXISTENCE (and to the inevitable "it's just an essay", read SIGCOV again). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that viewpoint, but I'd like to understand if you think the tag is going to help with that? These tags aren't there as a "mark of shame", they are there letting folks know that help is needed. I think all the sources that are likely to be found have been found. So what is the point of the tag at this point? Hobit (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that all available sources have been found and that no consensus has been reached over its notability is the reason why the tag is there. Avilich (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: It's a maintenance tag, not a "tag of shame". What maintenance are you expecting this to result in? Hobit (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer consensus in a possible future discussion, or even the finding of more sources, though this isn't very likely. This has nothing to do with shame: the notability is still in doubt in the absence of further sources or a consensus in the last discussion, and the tag serves to indicate that. Avilich (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: It's a maintenance tag. What maintenance do you honestly expect to happen? Hobit (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that the issue of notability be clarified in the future. I don't know whether you would qualify that as maintenance, but that's what the tag's stated purpose is. Avilich (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But whatever, if you insist I won't restore the tag agaig. Avilich (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it since it serves no purpose whatsoever. Dream Focus 18:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It serves the purpose of indicating the article does not meet WP:GNG, as written. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit First, minor note: if you want me to respond quickly - or at all - please do ECHO me. I almost forgot about this discussion. To answer your question: the tag points out that the article fails GNG, and if as you say, no more sources can be found, then we will need a new AfD, one where hopefully this is clear and the closer pays less attention the vote count and more attention to whether the article is in line with our policies. Further, we can never be sure if all sources have been found and there is also a chance that new sources will appear that did not exist before. Now it's a race in time to see if new sources can be found before someone AfDs this again. The tag should remain as it is perfectly valid, pointing out an existing problem in the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you failed to get what you want, couldn't have the article deleted the first time you sent it to AFD, so you continue to argue on this talk page, and state you are just going to try to delete the article again later on. That many people participating in an AFD that lasted over seven weeks instead of just one, closed as Keep then changed to no consensus, same thing really, you need to just leave the article be, and not edit war in a pointless tag that will be completely ignored by everyone. Dream Focus 12:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support removal of the tag. I find these tags clutter pages and often hang around for years and the article either isn't improved, or gets improved but nobody bothers to remove the tag. To answer your question: the tag points out that the article fails GNG, and if as you say, no more sources can be found, then we will need a new AfD We already had an AfD and several editors would disagree with you here. Twice closed as keep (both before and after a deletion review), and amended to no consensus, there has obviously been ample discussion on the topic. NemesisAT (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, who specifically asked to be notified of replies. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus for the deletion means the tag stays until the problem is addressed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You just tagged another article I detagged years ago, with the notability tag, despite its AFD ending in Keep. [1] So apparently the outcome of the AFD doesn't matter, you still tag things. Anyway, consensus is that it does not belong here. NemesisAT, Hobit, and me have removed it. Avilich has agreed in the conversation in this talk page section not to restore the tag again. So you are the only one who wishes it. A tag must have a purpose, this one does not. Also you can click to subscribe to this section to be notified of replies. Dream Focus 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That AfD was from 2011, our standards have risen. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll AfD it shortly. I do wonder why User:Avilich changed their mind? Thanks for the subscribe tip. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it wasn't worth the effort rather than changing my mind, and in any case, if it ever goes to AfD again, it will most likely be due to one of us rather than anyone who passes by and sees the so-called "mark of shame". I thought you had given up as well. Avilich (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich I did not, and I just noticed AfD was amended from keep to no consensus, which reinforces the need for a tag. Btw, Captain Chaos tagged and AfD recently was converted into a redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any justification for keeping this tag other than sour grapes. It serves no purpose and should be removed. Artw (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the AfD that you seem to be using it to rehash hinged partially on Jess Nevins not being a good source, which is insane. Artw (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us which content in the article shows WP:GNG, i.e. that the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". The article still shows only that this entity exists (is not a hoax), but not that it's notable. Given the no consensus close, the article was kept, but the tag should remain until content is added to the article, proving said "significant attention". For more on what that means, see WP:SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our previous conversation to this was you saying "I don't see how this well known marvel character can be notable and I refuse to look at anything that might contradict that!" for about a week, so no, I'm not going to spend time engaging with your routine here other than to say the sources added seem sufficient and your objections to them during the AfD debate seem perfunctory. If you want more go back and reread the AfD and the discussion here. Artw (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]