Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lantern Corps (2nd nomination)

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. Merging can be discussing per WP:Merging and should be considered before renominating. So Why 08:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lantern Corps

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

This doesn't establish notability. The only real world information is primary info from the creator. TTN (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No policy- or guideline-based reasons for deletion. An author's discussion of creative decisions made during the writing of a work is not "primary info" or sourcing; the nominator's statement that it is shows a fundamental lack of competence in this area. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy-based reason was "doesn't establish notability"... Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously not policy-based. It's saying that articles should be deleted based on the state of the article at the time of nomination. Deletion policy, which probably should become familiar with. WP:DEL14 is pretty clear on this point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that links where you think it links - I'm not sure how "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" has anything to do with the current state of the article. I think that WP:DEL8 - "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" - does fit here, though. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Blackest Night, maybe? Or Emotional spectrum? I'm not sure which one is the better target. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 12:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on his claims and also for the fact that this group is part of the emotional spectrum. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we're really going to need a clearer explanation of what the secondary sources in this article are supposed to be. Right now, I see two IGN links that mention the group in passing, a load of citations to works of fiction, and some citations to people talking at San Diego Comic Con. Notwithstanding the impassioned claims above, this really isn't enough to justify an article on this group. Where are the discussions about the group in newspapers, magazines or scholarly texts? Where are the published interviews with the creators? Where are the reviews discussing the group in-depth? I'm not saying there are none, but we're really going to need to see some. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Rtkat3: Anything to add on this? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- all "in universe" content cited to DC comics, ComicCon conventions, etc. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recurring characters across multiple storylines deserving of their own page. Artw (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one or another of the proposed targets; WP:ATD-M is clear that we shouldn't be deleting NN things that have an identified merge target. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2017 (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.