Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sons of the Serpent

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Sons of the Serpent

[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)

Totally non-notable villain group that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge or Redirect, there's a list somewhere this can be merged to. Hiding T 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted by Daranios and Toughpigs (particularly those being added by Higher Further Faster) or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per User:Hiding. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While once more this article is in bad shape, secondary sources for improvement do exist: Marvel Comics in the 1970s, p. 193, has commentary and analysis, as does this paper from a Brazilian journal, thus fullfilling the minimum requirements of WP:GNG/WP:WHYN after all. And there are more shorter mentions in various sources, like The Ages of the Avengers, pp. 15, 18, 100, 107. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin "Keep" votes without evidence should be completely ignored per WP:NOTAVOTE policy. Daranios was the first one to advance an actual argument. The sources shown by Daranios are a good start, but I'm not sure it's enough to outright convince me it passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are existing secondary sources in the article: Marvel Comics in the 1960s: An Issue By Issue Field Guide to a Pop Culture Phenomenon and American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1970s. The nominator did not address why these secondary sources should not be considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that cites said sources has near-nil in the way of anything beyond the most cursory description, leading me to believe they have only the most trivial and passing of mentions. I would assume if they said anything more, it would have been integrated into the article, or at least brought to the attention of editors on the talk page. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is the article creator's WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While the Keep arguments might be weak, I see no support currently for Deletion. For those editors advocating a Merge or Redirect, is the suggested target article acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While we've been talking, User:Higher Further Faster has improved the page dramatically, with a Reception section that includes a widely-discussed flap on Fox News specifically about whether this villain group is being used in Captain America comics to malign conservatives. I would encourage everyone in this discussion so far to check out the improvement, and see if it changes your opinion on notability. Toughpigs (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reception section clearly meets GNG now. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sourcing in the article from multiple reliable sources. Curious as to why that didn't show up in the nominator's Before research considering it all seems to be online and User:Higher Further Faster seemed to have no problem locating it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:32, 20 January 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.