Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination): Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Krakoa: Reply
add
Line 31: Line 31:
*::I noticed this before because they tried to ping me while editing someone else's message, which just seemed... bizarre? Since then things have become (in my opinion) weirder. They went on a spree of notifying users about this AfD, then promptly retired due to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nekivik&diff=prev&oldid=1133107589 limited knowledge of various wikipedia rules and processes]". I have no idea what that's about. I hope they weren't discouraged by people's messages at their talk page. [[User:OliveYouBean|OliveYouBean]] ([[User talk:OliveYouBean|talk]]) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
*::I noticed this before because they tried to ping me while editing someone else's message, which just seemed... bizarre? Since then things have become (in my opinion) weirder. They went on a spree of notifying users about this AfD, then promptly retired due to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nekivik&diff=prev&oldid=1133107589 limited knowledge of various wikipedia rules and processes]". I have no idea what that's about. I hope they weren't discouraged by people's messages at their talk page. [[User:OliveYouBean|OliveYouBean]] ([[User talk:OliveYouBean|talk]]) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Since there were plenty of sources to establish N for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa]], it follows logically that those also establish notability for the parent topic. Both editors in favor of redirection admit that regular editing could fix any current problems with the page... so there's really no case for ''deletion'' at all. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 08:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Since there were plenty of sources to establish N for [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa]], it follows logically that those also establish notability for the parent topic. Both editors in favor of redirection admit that regular editing could fix any current problems with the page... so there's really no case for ''deletion'' at all. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 08:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - per the previous discussions already noted; per [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]], above, whoI think said it better than I could've; per everyone else on this page; and really per common sense. Sigh. Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]... - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 12:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:17, 12 January 2023

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

Just a lot of fancruft. Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. User:NekivikTT me 10:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:N is that the sources just have to exist for the subject to be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis mine) So even if the sources aren't used in the article, it is still notable and the page should still be kept. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
This page clearly fails WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikipedia does treat works of fiction in an encylopedic manner. That means if the sources exist to be able to do this, the subject should get an article. The sources exist to be able to do this (I linked a couple in my vote), so the subject passes WP:N and should have an article. Notability is about the subject, not the article. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OliveYouBean I was pointing that page fails WP:NOTPLOT, one of the main reasons for getting deleted as per WP:DEL-REASON. See instruction page for 14th point of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Only one above-mentioned source is reliable. Just existing in-world notability sources doesn't mean it is always reliable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable; so Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]