Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artemis (Marvel Comics)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 No Consensus to delete. A merge may be appropriate but should probably be proposed in connection with merging other related articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Artemis (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Cruft, article makes no assertion of real world significance outside of the fictional Marvel Universe Whitstable 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As you created this article, could you please add secondary sources to demonstrate notability? Or is your approach to spam Wikipedia with non-notable topics as if it were a Marvel fansite? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please try to be more civil and assume good faith.... Hobit (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. I might be wrong, but I think Gavin's regular violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are far worse than anything I've ever done on here. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the first thing about finding reliable sources. I'm currently busy, but I'll soon be creating a place to merge comics characters like this to. Then maybe we can cut down on some of this AFD traffic, eh? I don't know what more you expect from me, other than what I've already said I don't know how to do. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you can't add reliable secondary sources, why did you find time to create the article in the first place? Because WP:ILIKEIT? Is that the reason why you spam so many articles on non-notable topics that end up at AfD? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gavin, please dial down the rhetoric. I'm sure BOZ is acting in good faith in trying to expand the coverage of Marvel characters on Wikipedia. We should not be attacking editors who are trying to make good faith additions to the project. Exxolon (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am sure he means well. For instance, he recently added a section to my talk page in which he cites his source. It is just a shame that he does not apply this approach to the hundred or so articles he has created in Wikipedia mainspace that he has first hand knowledge of. This is a fierce critism, I know, but baseed on the number of his articles that have been the subject of deletion debates, my view is that he appears to be using Wikipedia like it were Wookipedia, where I think he would be more at home. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics), I concur with 66.109.248.114, and Wikipedia has room for information about everything, Paddy, it just needs to be presented in a way that people can find what they are looking for without having an article for every single comic out there. Matthew Glennon (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge and redirect as above. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least merge and redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics). This character has appeared in Thor #129, Thor Annual #5, Thor: Blood Oath #3 & #4, Avengers #281, 283, 284, Incredible Hulk: Hercules Unleashed, Hercules vol 3. #4, and Ares #1. This article is short enough to merge, unlike some others in Category:Marvel Comics Olympians — like Hercules (Marvel Comics) or Ares (Marvel Comics). --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as this is just one of hundreds of articles created by Boz who is not aware that reliable seconadary sources are required as evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of secondary sources does not make something non-notable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am not saying the topic is non-notable. Wikipedia guidelines on notability requires that evidence of notability in the form of reliable sources should be cited in the article. Can you provide reliable sources? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It all depends on which definition of "should" you are using. I imagine you're using #4, whereas I feel it's #5. The only time I see the word "required" in the reliable sources page is here: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." That I fully agree on, and insist upon, but does not apply here. Clearly, not everyone agrees on your interpretation, as I've seen more than a few AFDs where an article gets a "keep", "merge", or "no consensus" even when it has few or no secondary sources. Obviously, we want to get them when we can, but not everyone seems to agree that they are as much of a stern requirement as you think they are. If they were, articles could be speedied in the first place, and we could skip the whole "debating" process.BOZ (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of sources is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If the subject of the article is notable, the article should be kept. Sources can be added at any time. Wikipedia isn't working on a deadline. Rray (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Pixelface, Rray. Edward321 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - lack of sources should initially lead to the article being tagged as such unless it's in some way controversial. This AFD is premature. Exxolon (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as the nominator, I do not feel this AFD is premature at all. A lack of real-world notability outside of a fictional universe appears to be the problem. Whitstable 00:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and wait, at least for a little while, until sources can be found. Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources that show "Artemis" is notable outside of the Marvel universe, right? Where? George The Dragon (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for the record, it should be noted that George the Dragon and Whitstable are the same person. BOZ (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have made that clear, my apologies. George The Dragon (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem - I just didn't want anyone to get confused. :) BOZ (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artemis_(Marvel_Comics)&oldid=1137578591"