Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Cube

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 Infinity Gems. There's a valid argument to retain the page as a standalone article, but consensus is clear to merge it. Owen× ☎ 21:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Cube

[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)

A rather lengthy plot summary and list of appearances, but no reception/analysis and my BEFORE fails little of use, so the usual WP:GNG / WP:ALLPLOT issues arise. There is a significant overlap here with a more notable (and GA-level) Infinity Stones (it seems that one of the Stones is the Cube, aka Tesseract). Some content from here could be merged there, or otherwise a redirect will do. Tesseract (Marvel Cinematic Universe) already redirects to IS, not here. I will ping the editor who got IS to GA (User:ZooBlazer) for their thoughts. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 8 August 2025 (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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Infinity Gems. I can't find any significant coverage of the cube either, so should go to the stones instead. LightlySeared (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC) Merge target changed per others, thanks for the enlightenment. 11:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Infinity Gems, the comic counterpart, where the Cube seems to make more sense to be discussed given its increased prominence in comics compared to film. There's a big overlap in coverage here, and I see no reason for this to be split. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These aren't the same things. While it would be no big deal to excise the MCU content here, there's a good bit of comic-specific content that I do not see reflected in the proposed merge target. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Cosmic Cube is in fact independently notable. It gets a page length explanation in the secondary source "Marvel Arms and Armor: The Mightiest Weapons and Technology in the Universe" (2023) p.96, several pages of explanation in "100 Things Avengers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die" (2015) p.84-86, and this article in CBR (which is considered reliable pre Valnet purchase, and the site was relaunched in August 2016 - the article is from June). Ironically, there also appears to be significant notability for a real-life supercomputer also called Cosmic Cube. There is more than one Cosmic Cube, so it doesn't fit into Infinity Stones as an overlap, either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first seems to be a guidebook produced in collaboration with Marvel. Even if it's produced by a different publisher the fact it's all plot and published as an official spin-off work makes it PRIMARY media. Is this explanation in the second source just plot info? In conjunction with the CBR source this is still failing Wikipedia:NOTPLOT since I see no analysis or developmental info beyond just mere plot summary and appearance listings. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything in this is incorrect. An officially licensed spinoff encyclopedia written and published from a non-Marvel source is still secondary. NOTPLOT is a guideline for articles and doesn't apply to sources. The article does not fail either GNG or ALLPLOT, as stated in the nomination, with several pieces of significant coverage that attest to the Cosmic Cube/Tesseract's importance, and I found massively more sources when I looked for "Tesseract" instead of "Cosmic Cube". There is no OVERLAP because there are numerous Cosmic Cubes, with only one being the Tesseract. And, as mentioned by Jclemens above, the proposed target is only about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, ignoring every appearance of the Cosmic Cube in Marvel Comics.

Essentially the only thing you can put forth as an actual policy-based argument here is that INDISCRIMINATE is failed, but the sources do note that the Cosmic Cube is one of the most important and well known items in the Marvel multiverse. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to rewrite the target so that it is not only about MCU. The MCU splits have done a ton of disservice to the project and need a lot of cleanup. As for the rest of your argument, being important in-universe is not relevant for us. We need to demonstrate importance of this in OUR universe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every other franchise I have worked with on Wikipedia has considered officially licensed spin-off media a PRIMARY piece of media, as it is inherently something meant to market the franchise, and thus does not have a degree of separation that would warrant it being a source that is tertiary of the subject. Sure, the sources say the Cosmic Cube may be important in the Marvel universe, but of course they're going to say that, they're officially licensed Marvel guidebooks, not independent sources making their own assessment of the Cube.

And yes, while NOTPLOT may not apply to sources, it inherently states we shouldn't be writing articles that are going to be all plot summary, which is what this article is going to be given there are no sources that provide any non-plot context. The article as a whole is still going to run afoul of it, sources or not.

Additionally, I proposed a merge target of Infinity Gems, the comic counterpart, not the Infinity Stones, the movie counterpart, which makes your argument in regards to movie-comics separation moot. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Infinity Gems. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Infinity Gems since the article is focused on the comics, as opposed to Infinity Stones which is focused on the films. -- Zoo Blazer 07:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Infinity Gems, given there is little evidence of significant analysis or reception for this object. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Infinity Gems. Official guidebooks are not independent and are a better fit for a fandom article. There is wide support for an WP:ATD and it would be nice to focus on areas of agreement. Archrogue (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2025 (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.