Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa

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 Krakoa. Clear consensus against a standalone article, consensus on a redirect target is less clear but marginally more support for Krakoa; this discussion does not preclude later retargetting. Policy (WP:NOTPLOT) and practice hold that when we cannot write a reliably sourced article on a fictional subject containing anything besides plot, we treat that subject as part of a work or larger topic. Among other things, plot summaries, even when sourced, are essentially coverage of the work, not the fictional aspects thereof. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Council of 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)

Just a lot of fancruft. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Krakoa per nom. No independent notability for this organization. No critical analysis and reception of the grouping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Krakoa. Mccapra (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Krakoa and lock editing to prevent further unredirection, this needs to stop. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:A578:6010:913C:51E3 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Delete along with Krakoa page and other pages listed on Talk:Quiet Council of Krakoa if deemed for deletion. There are so many other pages related Marvel Comics in Wikipedia I can list including Nekivik replied in that talk page to Onel5969 that are based on only in-universe information and FANCRUFT; yet they happened to not have "notability" tag. Some of them even don't have appropriate wikipedia pages to merge with so they SHOULD be deleted but yet they don't "deletion" tag or been deleted. The PAGE all are asking to redirect itself has everything in-universe and lacks secondary sources.

This page have enough secondary sources and don't some references used on this page like below mentioned have real world notability been especially second reference or are these also in-universe?

• ^[1]
• ^[2]
• ^[3]

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2022 (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)} 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Refs 11, 12, and 29 are all non-trivial RS coverage of the entity, from three different organizations that publish on developments in the fictional world. I assumed everything was going to be primary sources and this was going to be a slam-dunk redirect, but the sourcing is far better than I expected. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  11 (CBR) is a lengthy plot summary, but I see no analysis / reception. 12 (comicbook) is just a poorer (shorter) version of that. 29 doesn't even seem to meet SIGCOV. In the end, the big problem is that there seems to be nothing we can say about this entity outside writing a plot summary, and this means WP:ALLPLOT is failed - and sure, this is just an essay, but WP:NOTPLOT is a policy, and obviously failed too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Piotrus WP:NOTPLOT restricts how Wikipedia presents fictional topics; analysis/reception is in no way required for a source to be SIGCOV, nor is it required for us to write an article--the actual wording is development, design, reception, significance, and influence which is much broader than your paraphrase. You also appear to be confusing notability, which requires sufficient RS, with verifiability, which only requires RS when there is a dispute. Thus, even assuming we only have enough RS plot summaries to establish notability, and enough primary sources to provide interesting tidbits about significance, then we have a perfectly good Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure. So, where's "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you asserting that these need to be present in the article for it to be kept? Or are you asserting that none of these could be constructed from the combination of sources currently present in the article? Or are you asserting that none of these could be constructed from all the sources (present in the article or not) which address this topic? Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What about reference 16? Nekivik (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nekivik There is no such reference I can see. If you link it here I'll comment on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per my argument above (this fails NOTPLOT and ALLPLOT). PS. Redirecting to Krakoa is less optiomal - that article doesn't show its own notability and should be discussed here (at AfD) too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the claims of @Jclemens:

Nekivik (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Krakoa or List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Plot summaries aren't enough to establish notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide a policy-based rationale for your !vote? (Hint: I doubt you can, because I'm entirely certain no such thing exists). Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the policy, WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Are there only plot summaries on page? Please check. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Check the recent changes made on page, before continuing discussion here.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect to Immortal X-Men. Nekivik (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No independent notability for this topic. There is currently no substantial reception and/or analysis, and the sources don't provide much outside of a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Krakoa - I have my doubts that the sources actually pass the WP:GNG, but even if they did, the group would still be better off discussed as part of the broader topic of Krakoa per WP:NOPAGE. While that article, itself, is not in the greatest shape as noted above, a quick search for sources gave me the impression that there is a far stronger argument for notability there than here, and it would likely survive an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 31 December 2022 (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.