Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced Idea Mechanics


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject is notable, while the article is also written mostly in an in-universe style, and the article herefore remains tagged as such. (non-admin closure) w umbolo   ^^^  11:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Idea Mechanics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional organisation in comics. Fails WP:GNG for lack of substantial third-party coverage in reliable sources. Tagged as failing WP:WAF (written in an entirely in-universe style) since 2009. Such content belongs on fan wikis.  Sandstein  09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)   Sandstein   09:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep It's easy to find coverage in sources and a selection follows. Dismissing content because it has fans is contrary to core policy and we wouldn't have much of anything if we did that because most types of content have their followers and enthusiasts.
 * Marvel Cinematic Universe Guidebook
 * Captain America and the Struggle of the Superhero: Critical Essays
 * Media, Technology and the Imagination
 * 100 Things Avengers Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die
 * The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe
 * The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood
 * 1000 Facts about Supervillains
 * The Encyclopedia of Super Villains
 * Andrew D. (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This doesn't indicate what, if any, coverage this organization has in these sources, or if they are reliable and independent from the comic's creators.  Sandstein   10:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Marvel Cinematic Universe Guidebook and The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe are published by Marvel, so they don't count. For the rest, many of these are collections so can you please identify the individual works within those volumes? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:18, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Marvel is a large publisher of many works by many authors. This doesn't prevent its works from "counting".  In fact, their publications have extra weight as they tend to be canon.  As for the other cases, they are fine.  For example, here's another fresh source: Marvel Villains and the American National Identity from World War II to the War on Terror which states that "Advanced Idea Mechanics (AIM) is a prime example..."  This appears in the collection The Function of Evil across Disciplinary Contexts.  So what?  Andrew D. (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 10:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - OK, the recent push to delete comics character articles is getting ridiculous at this point. AIM has been featured in a great many storylines since they debuted 50 years ago, and lately has been even more ubiquitous than Hydra. They were the villains in the movie Iron Man 3. I don't doubt that Andrew's sources above (and others that he didn't post, as well) have more than enough info to indicate that they meet some silly WP:GNG expectation. BOZ (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the most significant fictional organizations in Marvel Comics with appearances in movies, video games, and the books themselves. The group can be covered reliably in the sources given, it just needs to be cleaned up. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Occurring in many story lines means nothing. Secondary sourcing means everything--sourcing from outside the fan universe. I'd refer folks to Wikia. Drmies (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Some people don't seem to know the difference between Wikia and Wikipedia's policies. Relative importance in a fictional universe means pretty much nothing in Wikipedia, and the secondary sources here are nonexistent. It is already in Wikia in far greater detail.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Extremely notable in the fiction, and there is no viable merge target. Deleting this would be harmful to the nearly 2000 326 articles that link to it. The date of the maintenance tag is irrelevant since there's no deadline and AfD isn't for clean up. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Let this page stay. I agree with the claims of Sandstein, BOZ, Etzedek24, and Argento Surfer. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Rtkat3 means Andrew D instead of Sandstein. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction Argento Surfer. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-Wot sez.We are not Wikia.Not a single secondary source has covered the topic, any significantly. &#x222F; WBG converse 11:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I still feel this should be kept, but those in the delete camp seem to be unaware of how many incoming inline links this article has. At minimum, this needs to redirect somewhere. List of fictional espionage organizations and List of Captain America enemies are the best option I've been able to locate. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: This group has appeared on numerous occasions, both in comics and other media. If it is not kept Argento's suggestion to merge and redirect to another article is preferable to simply deleting it. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment--placed here rather than at the top, but this is kind of a response to 's comment regarding Andrew D's sourcing: yes. It is no surprise that publications like the "official handbooks" have entries on these. Are they "reliable and independent from the comic's creators", in Sandstein's words? If something is an "official handbook", then clearly it's not independent, and these kinds of books are really in-universe, as opposed to the kind of book like The Cambridge Companion to Dante. No, we need independent sourcing to prove these things deserve an article. That they occur doesn't mean much, and besides Andrew no one, not a single person here, has provided secondary sources. This is not impossible for comics characters in general: but some are more important than others, and thus more notable than others. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see this as a necessary article from a WP:CONTENTFORK point of view. Do you really think it's better to replace the blue link in the plot summaries of nearly 2000 326 articles with an explanation of what AIM is? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your premise is that it's important in the first place. I argue that it is not, and I think the article (which is of Wikia standards) proves it. This is for the fans. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * At WP:COMICS we frequently use the handbooks to gauge notability, because there are certainly characters and groups that the company doesn't deem as notable. This is just misguided deletionism. To dismiss the group because it doesn't have the sources you like is against editing policy. Fine. IAR. What the delete votes haven't attested to at all, as noted, is that 2000 over 300 pages link to AIM, as well as my point that the group has appeared multiple times across multiple mediums, in addition to having appeared (by Marvel Wiki count) over 400 times within the comics. MOS:WAF notes that it's acceptable to use primary sources within fictional articles, so long as it doesn't devolve into cruft. As I said earlier, the article needs to be cleaned up. Of that, there is no doubt, and AfD isn't for cleanup. But just because the article isn't important by your standards, does not mean that you can definitively say "it isn't notable." NPOV, much? Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 17:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My premise (as stated in my initial vote) is that it's extremely notable within the fiction. I won't defend the quality of the article. It's awful. That said, AfD isn't clean up and deleting the content wholesale would be detrimental to the articles that link to it. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Etzedek24, huh, what "much"? NPOV has nothing to do with this, and this whole "by your standards", we've heard that before in AfD discussions. That 2000 articles link to it, I can tel you what I think that says: we have way too many articles on things that are minor and that in themselves may lack reliable secondary sourcing. It may well be that we have a walled garden here, a really, really big one. An article should be judged on its own merits, and those are established by way of WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc. Why we should ignore all the rules here is not clear to me: there is nothing unusual about this. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you bothered to review any of those 2000 326 articles? Iron Man 3? Captain America? Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite? Claims about a walled garden are preposterous, unfounded, and quite honestly make it hard for me to take your opinion serious. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction - If links from templates are discounted, there are 326 in-line links to this article, not 2000. I have updated my earlier comments to show the correct number. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein doesn't know the sources because it appears that he didn't follow WP:BEFORE, as a nominator is supposed to. I have familiarised myself with the sources and consider them adequately independent and reliable.  As for Danté, see our coverage of his major work Inferno.  That page could use some improvement too but that doesn't mean that we should delete it and send people to the equivalent Wikia site – Infernopedia.  That site is a commercial business focussed on selling advertising and that's not what our readers want.  These major fictional works are notable  and so our readers expect them to be covered here.  That's our policy and so we should keep the page for further development. Andrew D. (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Andrew D., I'm not surprised to see you misconstrued my comment. This isn't about Dante (no accent), it's about sourcing. I don't know what Sandstein did or didn't do, and I don't know why you're presuming you might, but my guess is that Sandstein didn't "find" those sources because they don't consider them to be valid sources--at least that's the tenor of their comment, but I can't speak for them. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sandstein came to the article in question as a result of closing Articles for deletion/Jude the Entropic Man. They didn't spend long considering this article and so that's why they are not familiar with the sources.  Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Matt14451 (talk) 07:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I found some usable book references but I'm at work. Will add them as fast as work permits. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC) ... I have now added four book references, including a small analysis section. Frankly, I was surprised not to find more scholarly analysis in the vein of Costello's book, discussing the ideological underpinnings of the Cold War-era SHIELD and AIM; I blame JSTOR's lousy search function, but I believe I've demonstrated that the organization is mentioned in reliable sources not only in connection with Marvel products and the coordination of the Marvel properties, but also in a scholarly critical context, and that this evinces notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated, thank you - the faithless need to see evidence before they will believe. ;) I think you have added more than enough to clearly demonstrate what most of us already knew. BOZ (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More comments on the sources provided by Yngvadottir would be appreciated.
 * Keep. A quick thanks to Yngvadottir for adding those references. I believe this is now enough to meet WP:GNG. The article certainly needs cleanup, but as others have mentioned, deleting isn't the solution.-- SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 01:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, w umbolo   ^^^  09:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a large amount of WP:SPS but there appears to be enough independent WP:RS here. - Scarpy (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would like to see the page kept. I hate being referred to all sorts of other pages in order to find all the information. My car has three user manuals. To find information about one display, one book usually referrs me to sections of the other two books multiple times. There is nothing more infuriating. Due to this kind of frustration in other media, I would like to see the A.I.M. page kept. A one stop shop.Bfair2fans (talk) N21:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for so many reasons already discussed. Organization is prominent within its fictional universe, and external sources are easy to get. I wonder about the nominator's bias against this kind of article. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I note that despite the vigour of many people defending this article at AFD, none of them (except kinda-sorta Yngvadottir) have made the slightest effort to improve the article so as not to consist entirely of in-universe fan minutiae. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice how long this had been open. Yngvadottir did a bit, but debatably just made it more clear that the topic is not notable as their "critical reception" section is anything but. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They did more than just add a reception section. BOZ (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I know. That seemed to be the best of what they added. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 13:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.