Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (4th 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 keep. Aoidh (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa (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)

Another contested redirect. Not a single in-depth source from a reliable, independent, secondary source. Fails WP:NPLOT. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth discussions of the island. Everything is in-universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per my vote in the 3rd nomination, although I'll note that contesting the redirect seems fine, given that discusison ended with a keep vote, so redirecting would require a new discussion (which I guess we will have now). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep again. Why are we here, when this is likely to be represented in the MCU so soon? It's a major setting in Marvel's comics, "searches turned up mentions" is undoubtedly true, but likely an understatement. I've not time to go re-copy specific sources at this point, but will later if no one else gets to it first. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This was literally just speedily kept like two months ago, putting it up for AFD so soon again after that does not seem appropriate.★Trekker (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To House of X, which the journals mentioned in the last AfD appear to be about, not the island specifically. Also, the previous AfD was a WP:BADNAC pile-on style WP:SUPERVOTE. "Speedy keep" is not an applicable rationale in such a situation, so its result should be considered null and void. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is decent coverage out there, it's just a bad article at the moment. I'll add it to my to do list, I want to hit Giant Size X-Men first but this ties to that as well as House of X and there's substance about. Hiding T 00:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See also WP:SOURCESEXIST which has been the sole argument here so far. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. If it helps, this article is nominated using WP:PLOT as the reason, and I wrote that particular piece of policy. It's an article that could be better, and a better article would improve Wikipedia and inform readers and for me that's the point, nay, the WP:PURPOSE. Hiding T 21:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much. This is my position as well. Far too many articles are deleted not because they're actually non-notable but because there has been a lack of effort to make them decent.★Trekker (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the same reasons in the last two discussions and the claims of @Jclemens:, @StarTrekker:, and @Hiding:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination refers to the current state of the article (even though there already is a minimal reception section and a publication history), but that's not the decisive thing. Contrary to what Zxcvbnm implied, keep votes are not based on unsubstantiated claims that there might be secondary sources out there, but such sources have been brought forward in previous deletion discussions. I can copy those here if that's deemed necessary, but it clearly would have been the job of the nominator to inform themselves about those. So I think this article should be kept, as its problems can be improved through normal editing based on those sources. In this specific case, I think a nomination so shortly after the last (and already the fourth!) is not appropriate: In case of suspected inappropriate closue, considering a WP:Deletion review would have been the thing to do, as well as having a close look at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. More generally I ask Onel5969 to refrain from cookie-cutter deletion nominations and really do a proper WP:BEFORE search before future nominations, as required by Wikipedia's deletion process. Daranios (talk) 10:24, 14 April 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.