Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineer (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 redirect to List of Stormwatch members. The Redirect/Delete comments are more convincing here, that the article's sources are in-universe and the Keep !votes (mostly ITSNOTABLE) don't provide any reason to contradict that suggests this does not have enough for a stand-alone article. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer (comics)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. De-PROD justification seems to be in ignorance on how notability works on Wikipedia. TTN (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I fail to see why this article fails notability were hundreds of other comics characters articles don't. It does need to be improved upon, but deletion is too drastic. Flordeneu (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to satisfy WP:N with WP:SECONDARY sources detailing real world information and not filled with only WP:PLOT. This article is entirely primary, and available sources are trivial mentions in relation to the comic franchise. Other character articles are irrelevant, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TTN (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, that means it needs improving, not deleting. Flordeneu (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The means of improvement need to be shown to exist. Simply claiming it needs to be improved in fact shows the opposite. TTN (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't start it yourself instead of being so eager to get rid of it? Flordeneu (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A brief search turns up a variety of sources that help establish notability. A few examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. — Hunter Kahn 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really fail to understand how someone who seems to build good articles in general has such low standards when it comes to AfD. Did you even look at any of them before you posted them? TTN (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first source is of some use. Seriously, this is not an impressive argument - are we supposed to be intimidated by the number of elinks? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fails WP:GNG with all coverage being WP:TRIVIAL. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS certainly does not apply when talking about the massive amount of comic book cruft written when inclusion standards were about the same as FANDOM._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:29, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stormwatch members, which has a minimum of information on the character, or Stormwatch (comics), which has more in-universe information and is probably what users searching for the term want. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either List of Stormwatch members or Stormwatch (comics). The sources presented above are either trivial name-drops, plot summaries, or trivial name-drops in plot summaries. There is no actual analysis or discussion of the character that would really allow the article to be anything but all plot. But, as reasonable targets exist, a Redirect would work well here. Rorshacma (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First considered a redirect, but seems in-depth and notable on its own as an article. Burroughs'10 (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think Hunter Kahn's links collectively have enough to demonstrate notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. WP:INTERVIEW with the creator is the best new source found - and then it gets worse, mentions in passing in reviews of parent or related comic book series, etc. Not enough to warrant a stand alone article IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Stormwatch members or Stormwatch (comics) per Piotrus and others. Supporters of Keep have not been able to find WP:THREE substantive sources on the character itself. No amount of interviews or passing mentions can create notability without substantial coverage. b uidhe 23:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree that it should be redirected to List of Stormwatch members than having a standalone article on this. Covergaes are WP:TRIVIAL. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2020 (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.