Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Man (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 keep. Tone 08:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Big Man (comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable fictional topic. Andrew D. (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it really so hard to simply comment on topics you're actually interested in putting a good faith effort to save? There's being an inclusionist, and then there's being someone who simply ignores that Wikipedia has some standards. TTN (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Your comment isn’t much better. Just saying not notable based on your opinion is very irritating and is just deletionist logic IMO. Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * When it's completely obvious to anyone with any knowledge of Wikipedia's standards, there's little need for any elaboration. His comment, on the other hand, has no justification unless backed up by sources. There's a difference between being curt and being a contrarian to try to snub somebody who is correct. TTN (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, making detailed responses and rescue work at AfD is hard. I spent a couple of hours yesterday doing this for just one AfD – a literally thankless task.  By dint of patient research and painstaking editing, I've turned that one around but there are too many AfDs each day to do this for lots of them.  Now, in this case, the nominator has used Twinkle to punch out a nomination using exactly the same identical text as other nominations.  There's no evidence that they have even read the article, let alone followed all the detailed steps and searches required of the nominator by WP:BEFORE.  The nominator should be aware that such repetitive, attritional behaviour is disruptive because they have previously been sanctioned by Arbcom for using "repetition or volume in order to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change."  Twinkle doesn't provide any button-pushing short cuts to help those who would defend Wikipedia's content.  In this case, I made some searches to confirm that there are sources out there and so the topic has reasonable prospects, given time and effort.  Listing the results would take time and effort too but, in recent cases, those who wish to destroy our content just refuse to look at such sources or dismiss them out of hand.  So, to avoid wasting time and energy, it seems best to respond to the nomination in kind, per WP:SAUCE and WP:CHOICE.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per usual, bunch of evasive nonsense that does nothing to back up your position. The fact that you label using AfDs to cut down failing content as "destroy" speaks volumes as to why you're so completely disingenuous on nearly every AfD. You're a joke, and I don't care if that is taken as a PA. TTN (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there another way to take that comment? Just curious. BOZ (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At AfD, the onus is on the nominator to make the case for deletion. A vague wave at a guideline without any policy, evidence or specifics is inadequate.  I have done enough to establish that the nomination's contention is false.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You're such a diehard inclusionist that you don't care what you defend or how you defend it. You refuse to even discuss things on the same playing field, so you jump to irrelevant talking points and nonsensical sources. You're mocked by pretty much everyone in this space. It shouldn't be hard to have a civil back and forth on the validity of sources, but your entire modus operandi is based on the idea that those who want to clean up this space so good topics can flourish are inherently destructive. If you want to see why the removal of content is a good thing, go look at the video game and anime/manga character categories. I had looked through there the other day, but nearly every article is properly sourced from what I could see. That would have been near impossible ten years ago when those categories were so overpopulated by absolute cruft. TTN (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: C. A major crime Lord alias from Spider-Man comics. Too major just to delete. But is mostly used for Frederick Foswell in comics or Tombstone and Green Goblin in The Spectacular Spider-Man animated show.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect So far nobody's put forth any evidence of notability, even the biggest 100 page argument means nothing if there is nothing to back up your claims. Non-notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 *  Delete & Redirect  Merge to Frederick Foswell- Despite the above claims of notability, no reliable, secondary sources have been provided indicating notability of the shared character name, and searching for them myself has been unsuccessful. The only one of the these characters that has even the remotest bit of notability is the original, Frederick Foswell version, who already has a separate article.  I'm not sure if even that page is sufficient enough to pass the WP:GNG, but I did find a few non-primary sources that talked about Frederick briefly, so the name space should be Redirected there as the primary topic.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Killer Moff below that brief coverage of the other, not-so-notable versions of the character can be introduced to the target article, and have changed my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to Frederick Foswell. I largely agree with, but given the other characters here have direct connections to Foswell, perhaps a brief legacy section detailing them would work. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page., , and are right about their claim. Plus, I had established that page as a set index to talk about the different Big Man characters including the one from MC2. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. With multiple characters from multiple comics a redirect is not the best option.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2019 (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.