This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Better rationale needed for notability challenge
The necessity for this article was recently challenged by the insertion of a tag questioning sufficient notability, with no rationale given on this talk page and the rather dismissive sole justification "really, does she warrant her own article ?" in the edit summary, as if the answer to this rhetorical question were self-evident. I assume the person who (effectively) suggested removing this useful and otherwise hard to find information from wikipedia considers the relatively infrequent appearance of the character (in the commercially unsuccessful movie and in a single episode of the series) to be an argument against making this information available through wikipedia and takes refuge in the general notability criterion to bolster their argument. However, such basic wikipedia principles as avoiding original research and using publicly available sources notwithstanding, in my experience the major reason why people use wikipedia at all is because it provides linked information that would be hard to collect piecemeal. In other words, (for me) the very paucity of generally available information on Father is not an indication of lack of notability (which requirement I have always understood to be driven by considerations that have nothing to do with this issue, viz. that there would be little interest to anyone in making the information available) but an argument in favor of making the information available in the user friendly format of wikipedia. One of the reasons why my attention was originally drawn to this article was that for nearly 2 months it stated that Father "does not appear in the original series, and is only introduced in the film," which more recent contributions have shown to be a tangible falsehood, as the character does in fact appear in one episode of the series. This information may be relatively obscure but it is certainly not original research. However, because it is hard to find for someone who does not have the time or opportunity to watch every episode of the series, it is useful and (in my personal opinion) notable information. I could give other examples but I hope the general principle is clear enough. I believe mere paucity of available information should not be abused as an excuse to suggest removing even the limited information already available, which regrettably is all I can perceive from the suggestion that Father does not "warrant her own article." If there are concerns about the usefulness of providing a separate article (and I could see some merit in merging such stubs as this article and Mother into a general page about Avengers supporting characters as long as it does not become an excuse for removing already available information), they should at least provide constructive suggestions on how to present the information in a more suitable format. The lazy use of a readymade "notability" tag without so much as a token justification on this talk page does not inspire confidence in the tagger's willingness to move the information to whatever other article they consider to be a more useful repository; rather, it suggests that the next step would be an equally lazy deletion with no replacement at all. Personally I believe that even (indeed, especially) relatively obscure but nevertheless notable information deserves better than that; it's exactly why I and many other people use wikipedia as a resource in the first place Nude Amazon (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Made and reverted because no one buys your bogus claim that the term is offensive. You have nothing but your opinion to go on, whereas WP requires verifiable sources. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)