Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger (DC 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 delete. JGHowes ^talk 02:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (DC Comics)

[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 was recently PRODed by User:TTN with rationale "Fails WP:GNG" and the PROD was removed by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale. I concur with TTN that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This is yet another WP:ALLPLOT failure. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ALLPLOT is an essay and so has "no official status" and does "not speak for the Wikipedia community". And, it is quite inappropriate as the lead of the current version contains no plot at all – just details of the authors, publishers and publication history. So, it is apparent that the nomination is not based upon a reading of the article or policy. Our actual policy, WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolute failure of WP:GNG. While ALLPLOT is an essay, it is based on the concept of WP:PLOT, which is a policy. There is nowhere near enough in-depth sourcing to show this character passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Onel5969: Per WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE, just citing a policy isn't good enough. To justify deletion, you need to cite a legitimate criteria for deletion. "But the article is all plot!" and "But the sources in the article suck!" aren't good enough on their own. In fact, there's really no reason to say "It's all plot" anyway because it's just another way of saying "The article is poorly written!!!" That issue is solved with rewrites, unless the topic genuinely isn't notable (which needs to be justified beyond complaining about surmountable problems, per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). Dark knight 2149 02:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Darkknight2149, uh, no. Neither of those policies state what you claim. Citing GNG is citing a criteria for deletion. And Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup is just as valid an essay. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Onel5969: Yeah, no. WP:GNG is part of WP:Notability just like WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN.

Per WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."

Per WP:NEXIST, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet."

"But the article is all plot!" and "But the sourcing in the article is bad!" are both surmountable problems that have nothing to do with WP:GNG. Likewise WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP has its roots in WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, which are both policies. Dark knight 2149 18:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darkknight2149, neither or which is what you said originally. But you probably knew that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judomaster, where he is already covered pretty sufficiently. Andrew's Keep argument appears to be based entirely on the fact that the nom mentioned WP:ALLPLOT, however as the nom also mentioned the character failing the WP:GNG, which based on searches he certainly does, that is not really much of an argument for keeping. There is very little coverage on the character in reliable, secondary sources - even books on the very specific topic of the All-Star Squadron, such as The All-Star Companion An Overview of the Justice Society of America and Related Comic Series, 1935-1989. Volume two barely mentions him, and only in the context of him being the sidekick of Judomaster. As there is pretty much no way this character passes the WP:GNG on his own, Redirecting to Judomaster is about the best that can be done. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several elements in my keep. I rebut the argument of the nomination and I cite WP:ATD which, as a policy, is stronger than guidelines and essays. It is manifest that there are sensible alternatives to deletion such as improvement of the page, because I have done so. The worst case would be merger to Judomaster as the character in question is their sidekick. Such merger is done by keeping the page not by deleting it. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring the mention of GNG and that it is also a policy. Also, there is no referenced content that is worth merging - there is no reception section here at all. Why should the Judomaster character contain any content from this one? Where would it fit? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG per One15969. It is a disambiguation and therefore doesn't require a redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Performed a source check and came up with nothing. Dark knight 2149 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ALLPLOT relates to the content of an article, not sourcing, and as such, should not play any part in an AFD discussion, unless there is a serious belief in WP:TNT. That said, I do agree that this character fails WP:GNG, a quick WP:BEFORE shows nothing useful, and therefor, should be deleted. As for WP:ATD, the title is somewhat generic, and could just as easily refer to the spiral agent, or even Mister Tawky Tawny, so merge or redirect seem not to be valid. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, WP:BEFORE shows nothing, no sources have been found with SIGCOV, and article is what Wikipedia is not. // Timothy :: talk 11:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of minor DC Comics characters. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:ALLPLOT too in the same sense: there aren't third party sources that discuss this with any meaningful out-of-universe context. Either way it comes back to a lack of sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2020 (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.