Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Merge not out of the question. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Calvin's alter egos (Calvin and Hobbes)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

In-universe, original research, unsourced, insanely long list of every alter ego Calvin has ever had. Indiscriminate as well. No attempts to improve since last AFD, which was kept without any real solid rationale besides WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, and other crap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Dismissing the arguments put forth in the original AfD discussion as "crap" is bad form. I have no problems with the original AfD's conclusion. Improvements to the article via editing would be more welcome than simply erasing it. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing but primary sources to be found for this. I have all the C&H books, but I've found no secondary sources that discuss Spaceman Spiff et al. in any detail. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to main article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge is the best thing to do, I guess. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a WP:SS spinout because merging would create two problems 1) C&H is FA, and this material, while certainly meriting inclusion, isn't up to those standards, and 2) C&H is already bordering on too long of an article. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google News sourcing for:
 * Spaceman Spiff
 * Google Books and Google Scholar have plenty on Spiff, too.
 * Stupendous Man
 * Tracer Bullet
 * Even Captain Napalm who admittedly only made three apparances, has coverage. While there's some overlap, the quality of the references (e.g., Washington Post) shouldn't be ignored.
 * In short, WP:BEFORE shows that there exists plenty of reliable secondary sourcing for these specific aspects of an unquestionably notable (Again, it's FA) work of fiction. Granted, there are redundancies and primary sources embedded in the Google specialty search results, but there's plenty here with which to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * These Google hits are all about Calvin and Hobbes. If I can find Google hits for Calvin's tousled hair, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should have a freestanding article on such. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, that's an apples to oranges comparison: you did a Google web search. The news search which corresponds to the ones I linked above shows nothing. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  weak Keep per Jclemens. The sources are fairly weak individually, but there are a lot of them.  I think there's enough to show notability.  Which is odd, because I came here thinking this would be an obvious delete given the title. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC).  ---Updated to keep due to current state of article, which is outstanding and reasonably well sourced! Hobit (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a summary style article. That is, it could all be included in Calvin and Hobbes, so notability really isn't an issue.  It's a subset of a notable article, and as such inherits its notability.  What we DO have is a plethora of independent, reliable sources speaking to verifiability and cultural impact of these differing imaginings of Calvin. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:SUMMARY is not an argument for inherited notability. An article on Calvin's shoes would similarly fail WP:NOTE. Sourced information on "cultural impact of these differing imaginings of Calvin" would be welcome in the parent article&mdash;not that this article has any to contribute. / edg ☺ [Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]] 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an argument for inherited notability, but one that doesn't have consensous thus I didn't make that argument. I believe the massive number of weak sources are enough to build an article out of and meet WP:N in the process.  I also suspect there is a published article somewhere the covers this in a peer-reviewed journal.  It's just the kind of thing that folks would use as a starting point for a conversation about, say, imaginary behavior. Hobit (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Jclemens. Edward321 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I came here thinking this would be an obvious delete given the title, but oddly it is entirely fancruft comprising WP:OR and joke recaps. Sole third-party sources are a joke made by Berke Breathed and an "in pop culture" mention on South Park&mdash;insufficient notability for a freestanding article. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sources linked to above by Jclemens are actually very good RSs (Washington Post, solid books, etc.) but I didn't feel any of them went into significant detail here. But there are certainly many many third party sources.  Hobit (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these Google hits (that you call "sources") are about the subject; mostly they are about Watterson, or announcements for new anthologies. The Washington Post article being hyped here is entirely about Watterson, making only passing mention of Calvin's alter egos in one sentence. This is Wikipuffery. None of these hits make a case for this article, per WP:GNG. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So if you think that this is a non-notable spinout, aren't you really advocating merger, rather than deletion? AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I am obviously arguing for deletion. Calvin and Hobbes already has a section for Calvin's roles. Packing it with unsourced fancruft and WP:PLOT detail would not improve that article. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)No words in your mouth--hence the "?" at the end of the sentence. I just wanted you to clarify your position, which you have done splendidly: WP:ITSCRUFT. You might also want to review WP:SS--the section you reference is the parent section of this article, the part from which J. Delanoy originally copied it per the first AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a number of brief mentions (a sentence or two) on a number of the characters in there. Certainly the article was about something else, that's why they are brief mentions, but there are sources here. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep if sufficient sources can be found, or Merge to Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) (which should not be merged with the main article). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I still believe there are sufficient sources around to justify a separate article for this as a separate article, but failing that, I like this merge target better than Calvin and Hobbes. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally concur. Amended my !vote to keep/merge. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The references seem valid enough, it mentioned in many sources. Plus it is a valid article, a key aspect of a work of notable fiction, which has enough information on its own to validate its existence as a separate article.   D r e a m Focus  18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest Possible Keep - Enough. You (the nom in ALL this Articles AFD's) CANNOT keep nominating something you do not like until it is gone. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * that's unfair. This is only the second time. If it gets nominated a third time, then you'll have a case. DGG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Appolagies offered. My feeling is that it seems like an IDONTLIKEIT nomination alledging ILIKEIT consensus at the previous AFD, where consensus seemed clear to me. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nom mentions all relevant points. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Well the version I read is a keep. I don't know what the version 10# Hammer saw when he nominated this article, but this one has only three alter-egos of Calvin & a discussion of other imaginary personae he adopted over the life of the comic. However, three items do not truly make for a list, so I am ambivalent about this one. -- llywrch (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Though mentioned in passing by many reliable sources, there is no substantive coverage with which to make an article. I can only guess that the content here is original research since most of it's not referenced.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 10:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd really rather the entire thing be deleted, rather than the parts that are sourced (as you acknowledge above) merged somewhere? Also, isn't the implication that everything must be either sourced or original research a false dichotomy? Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The way NOR is invoked by Kraftlos often appears in Wikipedia discussions, & it always annoys me. Providing a summary of a plot or a character is not original research, & in any case a reader can always verify the truth of the statements by reading the relevant parts of the work. Concern for original research should begin when someone starts to talk about matters which require interpretation of the material without using the judgment of an expert, e.g. "Spaceman Spiff is based on...", "Watterman reintroduced to Spaceman Spiff because...", "Spacemen Spiff represents to Calvin..." All such instances of that in this list are clearly based on the opinions of verifiable sources. My concern with this article, to repeat myself, is not with the content, but whether this list is the best way to present the content. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've gone through and added a lot of references to the primary sources and removed the statements which seemed ORish or had fact tags. If anyone is unsatisfied by the current state of the article, please feel free to add more tags to the article. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep after Jclemens additions. Ikip (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2009 (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.