Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)


 * 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. v/r - TP 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails the general notability guideline. All the sources which cover this character seem to fail our guidelines on reliable sources. S Larctia (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google returns c 422,000 hits so it would appear to meet notability guidlines.FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any particular sources which you believe substantiate notability ? --S Larctia (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there anything in that number that provides verifiable evidence of notability? The number of hits on Google is nice, but does not in and of itself indicate notability. And then there is how the search is run, a result number can wind up including hits that have just one of the words or the three scatter in various places in the article. Looking at the search links up top:
 * "Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" -wikipedia : This nets 16,100 including wikis, image dumps, and fansites on Google
 * "Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : This nets, surprisingly, 7,380 on Google
 * Aqualad Jackson Hyde : This nets 9,040 on Google
 * Aqualad : This nets 417,000 on Google, but that goes well beyond this specific topic
 * "Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : Nets 1 on Google News
 * "Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : Nets 2 on Google Books
 * "Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : Nets 0 on Google Scholar
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - the Cartoon Network connection alone is enough, but coverage in such arenas as [Newsarama http://www.newsarama.com/comics/meet-the-new-aqualad-100611.html] show real-world relevance. 76.102.53.70 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Places like Newsarama covering him, makes him notable. Announcements of the character are everywhere.    D r e a m Focus  22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 part GNG question:
 * How do the Newsarama and Digitalspy articles show "significant" coverage of the topic rather than just that the topic exists?
 * How is this notability then shown in the article that is currently all but 100% plot?
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If he wasn't notable, then why would so many reliable sources be mentioning him? The coverage is significant enough.  And the current state of the article is not a valid reason to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A few things
 * It is hard to say that 2 - all that has been pointed to at this point - is "so many". That actually looks like "so few".
 * Reliable sources that mention the character exists does not show significant coverage under GNG. Jfgslo is right that simple existence does not equate to notability.
 * The state of the article is an indication of failing GNG and plot. Maintenance of that if the article is kept as a result of this AfD can become grounds for deletion.
 * - J Greb (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge to Aqualad: Without reception and significance, the article is a summary-only descriptions of a fictional work, nothing to presume that the fictional character deserves a stand-alone article. The fictional character has no reliable secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about him. Also, there is no objective evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as all that shows up with a search engine test are several Google hits to unreliable sources or sources that do not treat the character in detail, but there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Existence is not the same as notability and I see no evidence that the fictional character meets the notability criteria as a stand-alone subject. However, I would not have problems with merging content from this article to the main one, Aqualad, although the article Garth (comics) has the same problems and should also be merged there as well. Jfgslo (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A merge - likely the best result at this point - would need a decent copy edit to stream line the amount of plot retained. If the extended merge is done, the copy editing also need to be mindful in placing wight on the characters. - J Greb (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 03:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - I agree that there are very few decent sources, outside of promotional material and comic-oriented blogs. But this is a genuine comic book character that has lots of minor references.  On the other hand, merging into Aqualad would not be objectionable.  --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge: appears to have some bare notability. Warrants more time to improve. It would also help develop the other Aqualad article if they were merged. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2011 (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.