Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of the Damned

Add links
Source: 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 2000 AD (comics). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City of the Damned

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

City of the Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, effectively unreferenced. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd be theoretically in favour of a heavy edit and merge to some sort of List of Judge Dredd stories/story arcs article but a) that doesn't exist and b) it would be absurdly long. However, while I am working a lot on the IPC weeklies I won't be touching 2000 AD because the fans are mental and life is too short. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, poking around the Judge Dredd template reveals a huge number of unreferenced under-referenced articles (e.g. Wetworks (Judge Dredd novel) and most of the other novels, Judge Dredd: Grud is Dead and most of the radio plays, Banzai Battalion, etc). Judge Dredd is clearly notable but a lot of these derivative pages seem to stem from the days when sections of Wikipedia were basically a Fandom forerunner.
    If it was coverage of an area I was fully confident/interested in I'd wipe a lot of it and build back up from a set of well-reference list-type articles, splitting off to individual pages when the threshold for notability is met, which is an approach that seems to be working okay on other British comics.
    But I don't have much beyond working knowledge of Dredd and my editing is heavily invested elsewhere, and I'm reluctant to mass-prod articles at the same time, making it difficult for someone who does have those attributes to respond. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment corrected for spelling, "unreferenced" to "under-referenced". BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BoomboxTestarossa Some past AfDs from similar JD's topics have led to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines, but it looks... bad. :( There is indeed a lot of cleanup to do here, although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega-City One is worth checking (and perhaps revisiting, as the article certainly did not improve since...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus yikes, yeah. Also not crazy-crazy on the idea of "major storylines", which feels like a subjective call anyway (what's major? Critical acclaim? Lots of discussion? Length? Impact for the fictional universe? collected in TPB?); my instinct would be in so much as possible all-or-nothing but again I wouldn't be doing it. And with c.2300 issues of 2000 AD and c.440 issued of Megazine, plus spin-offs, plus the way British comics often pack a lot into 3-4 pages, any list would be gigantic.
I am ever so slightly biased towards weak redirect to Judge Dredd, entirely because I hate, hate, hate typing plot summaries (I can never do them justice) so am always up for some sort of preserved option should a use ever be found. Again, though, I am wary of dictating *how* the material should be handled as I have no intention of working on the area in the foreseeable future. It's a shame there isn't some feature where articles like this can somehow be archived in an easy-to-access library where they're not good enough for Wikipedia but not totally without future potential. To some degree with older comics there's an x-factor where TPB releases can suddenly generate sources. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprodding with WP:IDONTLIKEIT-like rationale is IMHO a WP:POINT abuse of the system. Yes, you are technically correct you can do so, but wasting folks time at AFD is not a constructive way to help the project IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no WP:POINT here whatsoever. I deprodded because I did not believe deletion of this article was uncontroversial, which is the only reason I ever deprod articles. This project is governed by discussion and if someone does not believe that deletion is uncontroversial then you should just take it to AfD without making snide remarks. And please do not accuse an editor of abuse of the system for asking for a discussion, which only serves to imply that you think your decisions shouldn't be challenged. You really should know better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep confusing "controversial" with "I don't like it". Case in point, no keep votes for those articles, even from you. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be completely fair, so far only one person has made any point on these AfDs beyond a comment. There were six of these articles nominated all at once from the same series. Not only is it going to take time for people to get around to reviewing these articles, but there simply aren't enough people commenting to get a clear consensus either way. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mystified as to how anything I've said is "I don't like it". I've said it clearly could be controversial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, one editor doesn't make a controversy. But we're in the AFD process now, and we can let the discussion run its course. I suggest all the editors take the procedural discussion elsewhere, including whether Wikipedia is supposed to operate as a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If a deletion could reasonably seen to be controversial then prodding should not be used. WP:PROD is perfectly clear on this. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that deletion of an article related to such a significant topic as Judge Dredd could be seen as controversial. It should not really have been prodded in the first place, and deprodding should not have been greeted with a snide remark. That was my only point. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't call a Judge Dredd storyline controversial, I mean it's a comic, not genocide or nuclear war. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of coverage from reliable sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 6 September 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/City_of_the_Damned&oldid=1175140293"