Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd 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 keep‎. A clear consensus to Keep this article. Improvements are welcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe

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)

This is a place where a bunch of non-notable Marvel Universe topics "went to die" :/ Effectively a gigantic list of stuff (places, organizations, objects, and, uh, cosmic forces...), haphazardly collected and organized. There is no need for this effectively list of all in-universe concepts related to Marvel Universe to exist, it's pure WP:FANCRUFT, failing WP:GNG and WP:NLIST (too broad, pointless). This could be at best WP:ATD-Redirected to Marvel Universe, on the off-chance something here would be useful to merge there (but it's just a plot summary of niche concepts, so I doubt its needed). PS. Note we only have four "Features of" articles on Wikipedia. Those include: Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (sigh), Features of Spider-Man media and a bit different but still likely needing to go, Features of the Opera web browser; expect to see them all AfD shortly...). PPS. AFDs started. Also, on the off chance this is kept, this would need renaming to the list of something format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Nothing has changed since the prior two AfDs. This is just WP:Beating a dead horse and kind of reads like you just don't like it. There is no better place to compile all of these features, though it can definitely be improved upon and consolidated, but that is not what AfD is to be used for, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I would suggest taking your suggestions to the list's talk page first before restarting yet another AfD. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' !vote at the last AfD: This is a WP:CSC #2 spinout of aspects of an unquestionably notable milieu. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, this is the landing space for a huge number of redirects. Look at what links here for this page. Well over 500 incoming links including double-redirection. If there's not a criteria for "this was a merge target for other articles" then there should be; deleting this would effectively blow away ridiculous amounts of editor's work. Does anyone have a tool to calculate the maximum text size of previous revisions of incoming links? Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting crappy content in one place then blowing it up is hardly uncommon. And if some folks want to waste their time writing and then moving around unsalvageable (unencyclopedic) stuff, well, it's a (reasonably) free (wiki) world... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's deceptive, inappropriate, and your attitude is unbecomingly disrespectful to the people who build Wikipedia. Do better, and stop kicking sandcastles over just because you're an academic. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an acceptable conclusion at times, there is clear consensus against this rationale being the sole solution to the problems of this list. There are other avenues to explore before blowing content up, and work to improve such content ought to be done before going all the way with yet another deletion proposal. I would like to see concerns raised at the list's talk regarding the current problems there and proposals on how to adequately address them without diluting focus on the content or removing it entirely. One editor's apparent disliking of a select list type existing should not be unilaterally imposed on all other editors and the content of all the similar lists. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:CFORK. Marvel Cinematic Universe already exists. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR. Don’t just dump random details into a page and call it a Wikipedia article. 104.129.158.228 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a content fork of the MCU, because this article is not about the MCU at all. Your argument would have been more accurate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe instead. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion has not changed as compared to last year: I believe this list does fulfill WP:NLIST, being the complementary list to the notable Marvel Universe. It does fulfill two common functions of lists: navigation for the blue-linked entries, and collection of information on features which are not notable by themselves as in WP:ATD-M. For the latter type of entries, this list needs more commentary based on secondary sources and likely trimming, but these are matter of normal editing and therefore do not warrant deletion as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So I suggest to those most bothered by the current state to WP:JUSTFIXIT. Marvel is sprawling enough to produce articles like Adamantium or S.H.I.E.L.D., so that a "features" list makes sense here even though that may not be the case for other fictional universes (also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). This is also the corresponding list to the fictional subcategories of Category:Marvel Comics (minus the characters) in accordance with WP:CLN. With regard to changing the name, I don't really see a need to change this to List of features of the Marvel Universe in the balance between being concise and precise, but have not strong opinion on this. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above from Trailblazer101, Jclemens and Daranios and the outcomes of the previous AFDs. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when it's obvious the nominator does not like articles with the naming "Features of..." and even then, that can be dealt with on each independent talk page. This is just bad form. – The Grid (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Trailblazer101:, @Jclemens:, @Daranios:, and @BOZ:. While the list appears to be too long and most of the redirects like Hammer Industries and Hidden races come to this page, some of the stuff should be split into separate pages like I once did when it came to the planets in Marvel Comics and how someone once started the List of DC Universe locations to list all the known locations there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtkat3 We do need a list of Marvel Universe locations; I agree with this. I just don't think we need an indiscriminate list for all stuff from a given fictional universe. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to help start the List of Marvel Universe locations page sometime after this discussion is closed, go right ahead. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was never meant to be a list of all stuff from this fictional universe, and I think assuming this is a misconstruction. This is currently only vaguely spelled out by the lede saying "noteworthy concepts", but it's also kind of common sense. Just compare the number of items we have on our list to the roughly 100.000 (!) articles on "features" (as opposed to characters and comics) which Marvel Database has. If subjective judgement of what should be included is considered insufficient, dicussing and formulating a selection critereon is again part of normal editing and therefore its lack is no grounds for deletion. "Has this feature been noted by secondary sources" might be a critereon that could work for the non-blue-linked items. If this were to be newly implemented, however, I believe checking for sources first, and deleting if this fails afterwards should be the way to go, not the other way round. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There comes a point where the continued renomination of content that has overwhelmingly been kept in past discussions becomes disruptive, and it becomes time to escalate this disruption to WP:ANI. BD2412 T 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, I'd endorse opening up an ANI thread over this editor if more of their disruption occurs. Barnt Toust 01:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust Threaten me a bit more and WP:BOOMERANG will be in play. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, let's be civil here. No one is threatening anyone. Piotrus, as an editor on here for 20 years, you should know how to conduct yourself in these discussions. A recurring pattern of abusing AfD procedures to satisfy your own opinion and unilaterally enforce it upon the community because you don't like something could warrant intervention if it persists. That is all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As painful as it is for me to say. This article needs a substantial overhaul using top of the line sourcing and to be less in-universe. This list has many problems, but an AfD is an ill-advised venue for discussing these issues, as many of these topics contain substantial page histories and act as a large number of redirect targets. I am unopposed to a potential talk page discussion discussing what steps should be taken with making the list less messy, whether it should be split, etc, but an AfD would be ill-advised for dealing with the issues regarding this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much as it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with most articles, there is room for improvement, but deletion is not warrated. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close as Keep: As Trailblazer101 said, you really need to drop the stick, Piotrus. Your actions scream AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and the shtick happening everywhere all at once is something that needs to stop. Barnt Toust 01:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure redundant fancruft, per my comment at the previous AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 17 February 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.