Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legion (DC Comics)

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. Procedural keep. The content of separate articles should be merged to parent articles on case-to-case basis. Tone 17:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legion (DC Comics)‎

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character as a stand-alone subject does not meet the general notability guideline since he does have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Also, there is no evidence that an article about him can have reception and significance in the real world, so any article about him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information and therefore it is unsuitable as a topic for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the character deserves a stand-alone article. Since all it has is plot referenced with primary sources, depends on original research by synthesis to generate the content and the subject is a very minor fictional character, I do not believe that a merge or a redirect are warranted. Also, as the article title has disambiguation and Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed, I do not believe that it as a likely search term or that a redirect could be justified. Jfgslo (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because all of them have the same characteristics (all contested PRODs, disambiguation in article title and some even with no sources at all) and they should be deleted as well:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are disambiguators attached to a title does not make an article ineligible for merge. I think an article-by-article merge discussion is more productive than this, and I can't say that I actually believe an adequate search was carried out, despite lip service: I find this on the first page of the Google Book search results for Children of Ares, a term that has a lot of false positives. Add "comics" to the search term and we get this too. That's two reliable sources, which may mean that the GNG is met, or may end up being adjudicated too trivial--either way, that sort of an outcome cannot be reasonably argued in a mass nomination like this. Jclemens (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens, subject to appropriate merger discussions. The nom's boilerplate assertions (largely the same he posts in every pop culture/fiction-related AFD) are incorrect and unsupported. It is not true that these can ever only be "plot-only descriptions," because information is always available on creators and publication history, and in many cases I'd wager good money that there is substantive history out there, particularly for those characters from the Golden Age of comics such as Wonder Boy. Regardless, the solution to plot-only description is either to add non-plot information, or to ensure that the plot is otherwise properly contextualized within a real world framework. The nom is also incorrect in asserting that reliance on primary sources in and of itself constitutes original research. All of which leaves us only with problems that can be addressed through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Jclemens who points out that aspects of the nomination are not true and do not accurately describe all dozen plus articles listed. These characters are not of the same status in comic book history and should not be haphazardly lumped together as such. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: because merge discussions are needed, and because they seem to me to be different enough cases not to be lumped together Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with nominator that most or perhaps all of these subjects are not notable enough to merit their own WP entries. I also agree that their titles "name (DC Comics)" and so on make for unlikely redirects. However, I think that for most of these subjects, there is a good merge target for a heavily condensed version of these generally cruft-heavy articles. A few should probably be straight deleted, a few might actually merit their own entry, at least with a bit of work. But it's a rather dauntingly big list to work through, much less to get AfD consensus on each one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2011 (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.