Talk:Damian Tryp

About the prod
Oppose DO NOT DELETE: I'm a little confused as to the reasons for this deletion notice. First of all, let me say that there are plenty of articles out there that are truly minor character articles that have been on Wikipedia for several years now. None of these articles of characters been targeted for deletion, which makes this issue perplexing. Second, this is not a minor character. While not a major character, he is factors very heavily in the X-Factor comic and looks to be involved in the future Decimation related activities of X-Factor Investigations. These seem to be the two biggest reasons for whoever decided to post a delete notice on this article. Also, the issue with outside sources. These are comic book characters. I am curious to know what kind of outside sources, outside of comic books, the poster had in mind. Also, the style of this article corresponds to other comic book articles. So, again, what is exactly at issue here? Furthermore, nothing in What Wikipedia is not seems to go against this article, at least no more so than all other comic book characters. Damien Tryp is THE major villain of a major comic book. It shouldn't be deleted. {RossF18 02:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm the "whoever" that decided to prod this article. I also informed you of the prod on your talk page. I'm surprised my identity wasn't known to you. Regardless, I didn't mention WP:NOT in my prod.  I mentioned WP:V which states that If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  This article has no reliable third-party sources.  As of right now, Tryp has no life outside of the primary source that is X-Factor.  The consensus at WP:CMC is that we should be looking at minor character articles and determining whether they are indeed worthy to exist on their own.  I realize that there are a LOT, probably a majority, of comic book character articles that are about minor characters, and all they contain is plot summary and primary source material, but the idea is to fix those, not use each as justification for the others.  That they only contain plot summary is why I brought up WP:WAF (again, not WP:NOT) in my prod.  The secondary (third-party sources) would be interviews with the creators (in this case Peter David, when he talks about Tryp specifically), critiques by reputable third-parties, etc. The article is entirely in-universe, without any secondary analysis or development.  As it's unsourced, the only analysis that would exist would be original research.   Finally, I brought up WP:FICT, a notability guideline that says that minor character information should be contained in the article about the work unless that article becomes too big.
 * Now, since you brought up WP:NOT, I'd like to point you to the section of WP:NOT that states that Wikipedia articles should contain sourced analysis of real-world impact, not solely exist as plot summaries.
 * Can you please explain to me, after reading these policies and guidelines, how this article is an exception to them? Tryp may be a major player in X-Factor but to comics as a whole, he is a minor character, and to Wikipedia, he's not likely notable enough to have his own article. --Psyphics ΨΦ 03:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that if we implement your comment about this article, the entire comic book project would be less than 50 articles, since all the other articles fit your discription. I think that while all the othe articles do not justify this one, per se, the fact that there are over 500 Marvel articles (this is purely an estimate) with only a few articles that truly fit your discription (basically the main teams) what you're talking about is wholesail dileation of the comic book articles.
 * About this article, again, instead of merely commenting on how poorley this article is made, how about actually doing something constructive. Also note that you did mention what Wiki is not: Below is the direct note of the message you posted on my talk page:


 * ''I have added a "" template to the article Damian Tryp, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. --Psyphics ΨΦ


 * Furthemore, most, if not all X-Factor members do not have third party references or real world relevance. So, again, you're talking about the deleation of entire groups of articles.


 * I would not be opposed to encourporating this article into the X-Factor Main Article, as long as (1) nothing at all can be done with this article and (2) nothing gets lost that's in this article. (RossF18 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC))


 * I'll number my comments on your post:
 * The comment on your talk page was a template tag, my actual reasoning was in the prod I placed on the article.
 * This article would definitely need to be trimmed regardless.
 * I am definitely not opposed to a list of characters being added to X-Factor Investigations, which would likely include Dr. Buchanan, and short descriptions of Quicksilver's and Doc Samson's roles in the series.
 * I quite agree that this is a widespread problem, and would probably double or triple at least the number of offending articles. I'm not for wholesale deletion, but I am for widespread merging into appropriate lists of characters if possible.
 * I'm currently trying to bring Jamie Madrox in line with the projects' (both WP:CMC's and Wikipedia's) goals. In order to do that, I'm trying to find interviews with creators and writers Len Wein, Chris Claremont, and Peter David, as well as second party sources which talk about the changes in his costume, in character, and so on.  It's a bit more difficult to write a good comic book article than just reading the comic book and regurgitating what happens.
 * I'm not necessarily commenting on how poorly the article is made, I'm commenting on its notability and the reasoning behind its existence. That it's poorly written is an aside, for which I would not have tried to delete it.
 * There has been discussion on at least two occasions by the serious members of WP:COMIC (that is, the ones that frequent the project talk page) about wholesale deletion of either Marvel characters, DC characters, or other publisher's articles and starting anew, with policing to ensure that only notable characters get their own articles, and the rest stay in easily maintainable lists. I believe, however, the key is to garner enough support through discussion to revamp the entire project.  I'm sorry if I come across as cold or harassing.  WP:CMC has enough work ahead of it without additional character articles being created without sources.  These articles are the entire reason I recently Wikibonked. --Psyphics ΨΦ 14:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now we're having a constructive discussion. Again, I think creating a list type portion of the X-Factor Investigations main article that describes main characters (as well as main villains) is a good idea (as well as these type of additions in other articles). I agree on this point.
 * I also agree that the Tryp article needs to be improved. I only wished that you'd commented about this on the discussion page before you taged it for deleation. I'll try to improve the Tryp article to raise it up to the standards you describe. If, after a reasonable time, me and other members can not do it, I would not oppose merging this article with the X-Factor main article.
 * My only worry about deleating this Tryp article prematurely is that this article contains material that is not on the X-Factor Investigations. I think that an article has to go in depth, which the X-Factor Investigations main article does seem to do. The Tryp article goes much more in depth as far as comic book material is concerned than the X-Factor Investigations.
 * While we're on this topic, most other "team" articles are like this, which I think is what leads to many articles of minor characters that truly do not need their own articles. However, tagging these for deleation without first incorporating the information into someplace else would lead to the loss of good info. Thoughts? (RossF18 18:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC))


 * A prod will only delete an article if it's uncontested. I was testing the waters with the prod, and it was contested, so now the article is not going to be deleted.  It is not AfD, you don't need to vote or discuss, just dremove the prod tag, which you did.  I wouldn't worry about the deletion.  My thought is to trim this article down significantly, and merge the information into a list of characters.  As it stands right now, the article is a regurgitation of any and all appearances of Tryp in the comic, and that's not what needs to be kept.  I believe that after the article is trimmed, there won't be enough information for a separate article.  We can consult WP:FICT over what to include, but I am not able to do too much with it right now as I'm at work. --Psyphics ΨΦ 19:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I missed the boat on this one didn't I (Damn me for being sick!) I would've been opposed as well so yeah... fyi RIANZ 18:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to reiterate that this article is merely a repository of plot, and we do not need to go into near this much detail describing the plot of the comic book. Doing so infringes on the copyright of the writer/publisher.  These are not facts about fiction in the article, but rather fictional facts (i.e. fiction), so instead of reporting facts, you are paraphrasing fiction.  Being too detailed in paraphrasing fiction is just rewriting another's intellectual material.  We need to keep this article as out-of-universe as possible.  --Psyphics ΨΦ 21:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)