Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latveria

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. No consensus to delete; a merge discussion may be fruitful, but can take place at the talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latveria

[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)

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: The references are reliable enough for a comic-book article; and the books in the further reading and references section seem independent and reliable enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Changing my !vote to merge per Pokelego999, too related to Doctor Doom, and only large due to fancruft. But atleast the refs and further reading can be used. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom. All content related to Latveria is intrinsically linked to Doctor Doom and better covered there. I checked the sources used in the article, and the only one used that acts without being entirely tied to Doctor Doom is The Hidden Europe: What Eastern Europeans Can Teach Us, where it is used only in a humorous manner when the author describes Latvia, and is not really significant coverage as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the references already included this conference presentation, which does not appear immediately online, appears to be substantially about this fictional kingdom. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens is there a way to access this presentation? It looks promising, but we can't verify its contents unless it's available to read. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried. Gray literature like this often appears in proceedings of a conference which are often not well distributed or archived online, but it'd likely be possible to find the author's email address and request a copy. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, emailed the author a request about it. Not hard to find, he does other stuff on Dr. Doom like this, and has a literal PhD in Dr. Doom, (looks like his dissertation is now a book, Data and Doctor Doom: An Empirical Approach To Transmedia Characters, but too pricey for me to pick up just to see if this is included) so he likely counts as a topical expert. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being the contents can't be verified, so until we know its contents, I'm not sure we can count this for notability for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:OFFLINE actually says. A more relevant critique might be that multiple sources from the same origin are often counted as a single source for purposes of notability, which appears to apply in this case. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there’s this:

https://core.ac.uk/works/18757010/

pdf here:

https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/14126/1/LatverianIncursions.pdf Sententia Noveboracensis (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same info the author emailed me back. This is already in the article as it stands now as the final reference. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; sufficient sourcing. While a substantial part of the content should be removed, it would still be too long to merge to Doctor Doom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the respectful reasons done by @DoctorWhoFan91:, @Jclemens:, and @Walsh90210:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted above. BOZ (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've read over the source, and while it's very good analysis, my problem is that it's discussing Latveria entirely in association with how it impacts Doom's character. Again, like with the other sources, Latveria is an element of Doctor Doom and Doom's backstory. It's entirely associated with him and every source and is never discussed entirely independently of Doom, or with a great level of separation from Doom. I disagree with the assessment that it's too long to merge as well; much of the information in the article is useless lists of random in-universe content, and unsourced information on obscure information that is not necessary for a reader to understand the subject.

Wikipedia:NOPAGE states that even if a subject is tangentially notable, it is better off merged with other content if it is more beneficial to do so. I believe two of the three reasons listed at that page apply to Latveria, I believe. "Does other information provide needed context?" Yes, because Doom is fundamentally a necessary part of understanding why Latveria is important and intrinsically tied to Latveria's reception. "Do related topics provide needed context?" Yes, as per the previous reason, Doom is required to make sense of Latveria's importance and notability. Per the sourcing shown, which I can analyze further if need be, Latveria and Doom are intrinsically tied in Reception, and as a result, readers will receive the needed context substantially more easily if the two subjects are put in the same article, where both can be more easily weighed and understood for how they influence each other's notability and impact.

Right now, I feel as though this discussion has not adequately shown why Latveria inherently needs a separate article from Doom. I feel that this issue needs to be addressed adequately, as right now most participants in this discussion have merely been votes keeping on principle rather than seriously discussing whether or not these sources are adequately meeting Wikipedia's policy guidelines for separate articles or not. I implore the above voters (@DoctorWhoFan91, @Jclemens, @Walsh90210, and @BOZ) to please clarify how these sources are individually notable from Doctor Doom, and what elements of these sources you feel prove your points in this regard. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2024 (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.