Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Assassination (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 merge to Menace (Marvel Comics). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Character Assassination (comics)[edit]

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

Delete Appears to be little more than a plot summary of an average comicbook arc from The Amazing Spider-Man with little assertion of notability. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You should probably look at WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Spidey104^contribs 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary, I do know about it and I am very familiar with Spider-Man and friends. I have been following Spider-Man comics for almost a decade now and have been a fan of the character since I was in elementary school. But thanks for assuming good faith.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do assume good faith, but your argument comes across like the examples that link provides. So I followed WP:DUCK. Also, arguments are not supposed to use sarcasm to degrade another editor, so please refrain from that in the future. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I've read the article you linked and I'm not seeing how I fit that criteria. I never went "I've never heard of it, therefore it's not notable" or suggest that just because it was a comic it wasn't notable, etc. On the contrary, I do know about this arc and I do think comics can be notable for Wikipedia.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do realize that there is no perfect comparison between what you said and what is in that link, but it is similar. Saying "Appears to be little more than a plot summary of an average" is similar to the arguments to avoid that are presented there because it is based on your personal opinion. Spidey104^contribs 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Joe Chill (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How do those sites prove notability for the subject, considering that those sites write similar articles on nearly every comic on the market?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 04:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - My argument would be if they cover nearly every comic book on the market, then nearly every comic book on the market is notable. It's already the approach we take to films with theatrical releases - they're inevitably heavily reviewed so they're nearly inevitably notable. An outcome that sees every comic book able to gain wide distribution as notable would not be a grossly unjust outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So let me get this straight...you think every single comic arc that gets coverage from niche sites like Newsarama and Comicsbulletin should get their own article on Wikipedia? Giving an article to a comic title is one thing. Giving individual articles to separate arcs of comics regardless is another.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is notability. If it's got significant coverage in reliable independent sources, it's notable. TV shows get individual articles for notable episodes; albums get individual articles for notable songs. I'm not sure what's so different about comic books that they shouldn't have articles for notable arcs or even notable single issues. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not against giving articles to notable comic arcs and issues--such as The Death of Gwen Stacy of Kraven's Last Hunt. This is not a notable arc, no more than any of the other comics published and reviewed each month. The fact said "reliable sources" for this comic are from sites who publish similar sources indiscriminately for each month's comics prove that.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "Indiscriminate" isn't any part of the test of notability under WP:N. It requires only significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think you're disputing these sources are reliable and independent and that the coverage is signficant, so I'm not sure that you have a (policy-supported) leg to stand on in your claim the arc isn't notable. For a comic of the pop-culture weight of Amazing Spider-Man I would fully expect virtually every arc to be notable, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a process that returns that outcome. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "For a comic of the pop-culture weight of Amazing Spider-Man I would fully expect virtually every arc to be notable, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a process that returns that outcome.

Notability is not inherited. Just because Spider-Man is notable does not mean that every single arc and storyline featured in over 600 issues of Amazing Spider-Man and tertiary titles are notable as well. That's just beyond ridiculous.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - I said "expect". My expectation is that the level of interest in Spider-Man is so high that it would not be surprising to see each arc receive enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:N. Unless you're going to suggest that the article doesn't meet one of the criteria of WP:N, I'd invite you to take your personal frustration at the notability of comic arcs to Village Pump or a similar forum. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree with Sandor on this one, which is why I've change my argument to merge this with the article about the character it most affects rather than keep it. Spidey104^contribs 02:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. No need to completely delete it as that would destroy all of the effort put into this article. And it is notable, because the appearance is deceiving to editors like User:Sandor Clegane who are not actively involved in comic book article editing. Spidey104^contribs 14:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Character Assassination should be merged or redirected into related articles. There is the possibility for arcs such as that to gain future notability if the information from that arc is revisited or expanded upon in the future (such as Nothing Can Stop the Juggernaut!/Something Can Stop the Juggernaut). I don't think that storyline is notable enough as alone as it is, but the work to create it should not be deleted away. Merge/redirect the article so the old information can be easily resurrected, if necessary, in the future. Spidey104^contribs 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am actively involved in editing comics articles and the article is poor (with no out-of-universe perspective and no explanation why this is more notable than any other Spider-Man storyline). Similar Spider-Man articles started by the same editor (who left a string of very thin articles in his wake) have been deleted or redirected. This article is also suffering similar problems so if you don't want to lose it then improve it. (Emperor (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Just because am I not actively involved in editing comic-related articles doesn't mean I can tell if something is notable or not. Even as someone who is familiar with and is fan of Spider-Man and his related storylines, there is still nothing in this article to suggest any sign of notability. Obviously I wouldn't be going after articles like Kraven's Last Hunt or The Night Gwen Stacy Died which are notable for numerous reasons.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no explanation as to why it should be deleted instead of merged as I suggested. Spidey104^contribs 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what merging location do you have in mind, exactly? The article's way too long and plot-heavy to fit into "Fictional History of Spider-Man" or something similar. And you yourself have yet to prove how it's notable enough to deserve it's own Wikipedia article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. It could be merged to the Menace (Marvel Comics) article as this storyline is important to that character's history. (Joe Chill seems to have provided proof for notability.) Spidey104^contribs 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: While I don't like Wikipedia's nobility rule that much I will suggest that merge is a reliable option to use or if anyone needs additional primary sources for it to be kept I can provide it since I handled citations before and can help since I prefer not to speculate. Anyone with the original comics or the collected edition known as Election Day can find adequate details to source this article. -67.171.250.39 (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with the original comics or the collected edition known as Election Day can find adequate details to source this article.

We're looking for sources outside the comics. Sources within the comics aren't good enough.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JoeChill provided six such sources. In what way do you say they're not significant coverage, independent, or reliable? - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sites such as IGN and Comicsbulletin review the same comics each month indiscriminately. They're hardly good enough to prove notability of one arc over another.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually looking to close this AfD, but looking at the arguments above, and then looking at the article itself, I am inclined to agree with the nominator. I am not a comic enthusiast (although a fan of comics!) but I do not see how this particular storyline is important to the history of Spider-Man (fictional or otherwise), or that the notability of this storyline has been established. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge - see below -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merge where? Abductive (reasoning) 03:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JoeChill's sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest others to take a look at JoeChill's sources before making a judgement call and keep in mind that sites such as Newsarama cover almost anything related to comics indiscriminately.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 01:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ESPN covers almost anything related to sports indiscriminately. How many sports articles are there? An article for every season of almost every team. My point here is that degrading sites like Newsarama does not support your point to delete. I no longer think the article should be kept, but rather it should be merged to Menace (Marvel Comics) Spidey104^contribs 02:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm hardly degrading Newsarama, just pointing out that sites like Newsarama don't prove that this comic arc is notable among all other comics. Unless you're like DustFormsWords who thinks that the notability of Spider-Man by itself is enough to warrant notability for all related subjects, because that's all I'm seeing.
  - And I don't know much about the sports articles, but if there are articles for every season of different teams, then I imagine it follows different notability criteria. Because I don't see Wikipedia giving articles to every single comicbook arc of different characters, even if said characters are notable.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - DustFormsWords argument about Spider-Man giving all of his arcs notability is a separate argument from claiming that a site like Newsarama covering the arc does not give it notability. Newsarama does not cover all story arcs, so its coverage of this arc can prove notability. Spidey104^contribs 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me, I never made the argument that Spider-Man gives inherent notabilty to individual arcs. My observation was that there is such a general level of discussion about and interest in Spider-Man that it would not be surprising to see each arc of (the publication) Amazing Spider-Man receive enough significant coverage to pass WP:N. Sandor seems to be proceeding from a starting point that only X percent of arcs of ASM should be notable, and I'm saying that that's a faulty assumption - there's no reason they can't all be, provided they each pass WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Menace (Marvel Comics) (Change from Delete) Although I am not convinced that JoeChill's sources are quite enough to warrant an article about this particular arc, I am convinced by this discussion that the content should be kept, and as Spidey104 says, this is the obvious merge destination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:02, 11 June 2010 (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.