Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog Logan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Origin (comics). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Logan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This thing has been tagged for over a decade. There are no secondary sources--it's yet another Marvel/DC/Disney/whatever fictional character whose trivia and "fictional biography" was thought to be inherently notable. It's not--there is no secondary sourcing of any depth in this article or anywhere else that I can see. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Diverse range of views; even the Redirects/Merges are two different locations; try a re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Origin (comics) per Killer Moff. While he has made a few scant appearances elsewhere, Origins is his original and by far most important/well known appearance. The character is not independently notable, as the dearth of reliable secondary sources actually discussing the character in terms other than plot summary demonstrates, but is covered in the target article sufficiently and would be a plausible search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2019 (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.