Talk:Kamar-Taj

Dick Ayers
Given that Kamar-Taj was created in the first ever story of the Doctor Strange feature, by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko, how can Dick Ayers rather than Ditko possibly deserve to share the creation credit with Lee? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dick Ayers drew the Human Torch story in Strange Tales #110, while Steve Ditko drew the Doctor Strange story. That's probably the source of the mistake. I'm about to fix it. --Jim Henry (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Notability and sources
I'm seeing 2,350 results in google news mentioning or discussing Kamar-Taj. This massively satisfies any reasonable doubt there might be over notability. Any further reversion of this article back to redirect will require consensus. Polyamorph (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Which is complete nonsense when the AfD supplies the needed consensus. The consensus from an AfD holds so long as a page has not been edited to a point where that consensus can be reasonably challenged. Just because someone shoved it back into article space randomly a few years later doesn’t erase that. This page is still 80% the same, and the additional content does nothing for the assertion of notability. TTN (talk)<
 * The AfD is from 2013, sources do not have to be present in an article for the subject to be notable. Things have changed since 2013. The availability of 2,350 google news sources is not nonsense and I urge you to watch your tone. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is not substantially different than it was in 2013 aside from some formatting and an additional paragraph. That the topic has been mentioned is not an indicator of anything. Notability isn’t inherited from the parent topic, and the parent topic is the point of discussion. Your blatant dismissal of the AfD without you providing a single source is definite nonsense. TTN (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from the 2,350 sources I mentioned. This is clearly a notable topic. WP:CIVIL. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources you clearly have not looked at because they're about Doctor Strange. Amazingly, the primary setting of a blockbuster film is mentioned in passing in the dozens of daily clickbait articles about said film. TTN (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF. Take it to AfD if you wish. Polyamorph (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Kinda hard to do when you personally decide you're able to override AfDs with your subjective reading of a Google search. TTN (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The decision to override the AfD was made in 2016, by a user who justified their decision with the edit summary "restore - this is now a major location in the new film; adding sources momentarily". This was not done by me. I followed WP:BEFORE and I agree with that user. Many other users that have edited the article also seem to agree. There is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for reinstatement of this article. You will need to get consensus before reverting another time. All the best Polyamorph (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And that anon was incorrect in doing so. You're incorrect in doing so. That other people clearly missed it due to this article being edited less in seven years than some are in two hours doesn't mean that you can simply override the consensus of the AfD with a poor argument. There are proper ways to bring back articles. Citing WP:GOOGLEHITS is not one such way. TTN (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference since 2013 is that Kamar-Taj featured in the Doctor Strange movie in 2016, and will be in the next one in 2021. I added two more sources to the page. Per WP:NEXIST, this is a notable subject. How it was recreated and how often it's been edited are not relevant. If you're determined to delete this notable content, you should take it to AfD. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of new media using something is not at all a reason to restore an article unless backed up by sources. The anon added nothing substantial, and the sources in the article either literally do not mention it or are trivial mentions. I really feel like you need to take a deep dive into WP:WAF if you honestly think either of those sources are up to snuff. I still cannot reconcile that you literally work under the Wikipedia umbrella but legitimately feel that mentioning something a literal single time within eight paragraphs constitutes a good source. TTN (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me like we don't have consensus. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you're blatantly ignoring the consensus of the AfD. Though I'm sure you would likely take the opposite stance of citing an old AfD were I trying to initiate a redirect discussion on something that was kept. TTN (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a very bad faith assumption. I shouldn't have to keep reminding you about WP:CIVIL, and WP:AGF. I did request a WP:third opinion on this, but since commented this probably won't get a response. In any case, at least two users disagree with you, there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS (this is policy based) not to restore the redirect. Polyamorph (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if you ignore the AfD. I'm not going to edit war with you, but the revival of this article is blatantly wrong. TTN (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NPP reviewer here. I guess this is an impromptu third opinion.
 * The article passes WP:CCOS - the rather low review bar.
 * Consider that if the result were instead deletion, the article in its current state would not be eligible for a WP:G4, so a 2016 restoration/expansion on a 2013 AFD is not binding in 2020. People always have the option of expanding with improved sourcing without necessarily needing to go to DRV, etc. It's disruptive if it's an immediate recreation, but circumstances do change.
 * Re WP:GOOGLEHITS -- a hundred passing mentions of the place have far less weight than an article specifically on the place... but one article on the place is insufficient to establish notability. Can WP:THREE be met, because the article doesn't currently show that it does?
 * I'm comfortable that there's a better chance that it'd survive at AFD (hopefully with continuing improvement if so) but not convinced on a quick look that there's sufficient in-depth coverage to pass GNG.
 * Kamar Taj redirects to Features of the Marvel Universe, and that's probably a better merge/redirect target should this end up re-redirected.
 * (Noting that I tend to err mergist =) Sometimes WP:NOPAGE applies. Even if THREE is met, it appears likely that available reliable sourcing will result in this very weighted towards the film's depiction, which might suggest that general coverage at Features of the Marvel Universe with a link to specific coverage at Doctor_Strange (2016 film) might be the way to go.
 * ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 07:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)