Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkforce (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places. Star Mississippi 16:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darkforce

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Utterly without notability. The cited sources obviously have crap-all to do with this incredibly obscure concept and there are literally no non-prinary, non-wiki, non-random-YouTube-video sources discussing it that I could find. The last deletion discussion dug up maybe two or three that actually mentioned it (that were never actually added in what’s going on a year) but the case for keeping was so seriously weak I can’t believe it actually passed (one of the votes is basically just begging and pleading; subtracting that it would easily have been no consensus). The point is that this has zero real-world impact and is not important to a basic understanding of the comics, so a few pieces uncritically rattling off in-universe details in conjunction with something else doesn’t cut it for me. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (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. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens below, or Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places. BOZ (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very selective merge (as in, one sentence or two) to the "Darkforce dimension" entry of Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places, as suggested above. This article is a painfully sprawling WP:SYNTH exercise without any good sourcing. The most cogent summary statement is this: There are slight yet inconclusive hints that it may be a corruptive influence of some kind (at least to Cloak, possibly to Darkhawk as well), perhaps even a sentient entity and the opposite of the Lightforce. Yeah, no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve gutted all the nonsense and fancruft I could, so even if it’s kept/merged it won’t be a load of incoherent geek basement speculation and rambling. Dronebogus (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also merged one sentence describing the… thing, stuff, whatever, to the suggested target. Dronebogus (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Features of the Marvel Universe. If the latter happens, I ask for the closer to place the information about the Darkforce Dimension under it's Extradimensional places section and the Darkforce information under a different section on that page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the article is just a list of appearances that doesn't pass WP:N. I can support a merge for consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there's a real source analysis that's going to suggest the last outcome (8 months ago, not a year) was wrong, it should have already been done. MOS:REALWORLD is not a deletion criterion; citing it in a deletion discussion--even without wikilink--is a tacit admission that the article should exist, but be presented differently. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That must be the most content-free keep rationale I've ever read... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put the content in the first AfD. You did read that one, right? Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources doesn’t mean it deserves its own article. Dronebogus (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a non-sequitur. As there exists a previous AfD that found that sufficient sources to meet the GNG existed, you've not done much to argue that the sources brought up then were insufficient. If you did, I might have a second look at them and see if more existed. Until then, you've provided an assertion without evidence, to which I have responded appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing is you pointing out, there or here, what in these sources makes it worth keeping. My reading of them is summarized below (they fail SIGCOV and/or there is nothing in them that goes beyond plot summary). Our articles must go beyond plot summary/catalogue information of what works the concept appeared in, per GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your input, that's not my job. I presented sources last AfD, which was last year, they went unchallenged, and the close was "Keep". Thus, there is already a standing consensus that the sources were acceptable. If the nominator wants consensus to change, it's on the nominator to explain why consensus was wrong, not just assert that it is. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places - As mentioned above, when the WP:SYNTHy unsourced material was removed, the current article is basically nothing but a list of appearances, and even the sources listed in the previous AFD would not be able to really expand the article beyond that. As even two of the three Keep votes in the previous AFD also suggested this merger, and both have reiterated that suggestion in this current AFD, it seems like the most appropriate compromise. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that should change the verdict of the last AfD would be that most of the sources linked in that discussion are unreliable. Can anyone find evidence of that? The subject area here is outside my comfort zone, so I offer no opinion on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just redirect (as I don't see much to merge) as suggested above. Sources presented in the last AfD seem to be either in passing or limited to a plot summary; nobody has advocated any argument that this topic received even a shred of analysis, and there is no reception or analysis section in the article. This is pure WP:IPC/WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTTVTROPES fail. If I am wrong and analysis is found, do ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing to merge, and the proposed redirect location is also complete cruft. I have no prejudice towards a redirect, but it will probably end up being deleted regardless... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 23 February 2023 (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.