Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Flag


 * 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. This is without prejudice to the possibility of a merger, which is a normal editorial action that can be taken following a discussion on an article talk page, or under WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * After discussion and reflection, I consider it appropriate to amend this closure to no consensus on the grounds of poorer quality of argument on the keep side. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Captain Flag

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I prodded this a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". User:Toughpigs deprodded ith and expanded, with the edit summary "added more information from independent reliable sources". Unfortunately, the article is still limited to just a plot summary and publication history and contains zero indication why the subject meets WP:GNG. The linked sources I checked don't seem to go beyond said plot summary and list of works he appeared in, and I am afraid that's too little to meet GNG (as well as WP:SIGCOV). Side note to people new to the topic area: a lot of "comic book encyclopedias" are illustrated plot summaries, not written by scholars but by fans, and are in-universe, and/or much closer to illustrated books for young readers/fans or graphic novels than encyclopedias. So the argument "notable because he is mentioned in another encyclopedia" is not going to be very helpful here, I am afraid. The Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes is not an academic work but a fan Kickstarter project... and while I couldn't access the print version, I think it just reproduces the contents found on the author's website: /, and I think this is representative of the coverage of this super niche character in general (no analysis anywhere, just plot summary and least of appearances, sorry if I sound like a broken record). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, no valid deletion criterea given, "Jess Nevins doesn't count" is policy made up upon the fly. 2601:602:8B00:F750:3C89:5F1:D831:E4B4 (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is quite a bit about the real-world publication history, backed up by a three-page long section in Lou Mougin's Secondary Superheroes of the Golden Age, a non-fiction work published by McFarland. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What kind of non-plot, non-publication history is in that book? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * [ See for yourself]. The relevant parts are from the end of page 132 to the beginning of 134, so it's only two pages at most. It's just some storylines. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Avilich Thank you. As I suspected, there is ZERO critical, literary analysis of this character. Wikipedia is not Fandom, that's why we have GNG policy - we require more than just a rehashing of the plot, we need something showing this has been considered significant, notable, etc. Why so many people fail to understand this is beyond me. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons those who want to keep this article. Notable superhero as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect No indication, in the form of sources or a reception section, that this character has had any significant impact outside of his own universe, as mandated by WP:IINFO#1 and WP:WAF. The source provided above doesn't give anything relevant, and, like the nominator, I failed to find anything that could qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep the nominator has attempted to dismiss the cited sources but I disgaree with their reasoning. A published book doesn't have to be written by scholars to count towards establishing notability. It would be good to hear from Toughpigs who may be able to offer more insight into the sources they cited. NemesisAT (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @NemesisAT Works by non-scholars are fine, but we need something that goes beyond a pure plot summary and/or publication history. IMHO at least a few sentences of analysis, sth like "Captain Flag exemplifies middle-of-century nationalism" or like is necessary for the topic to merit an encyclopedic article (which is what makes it different from an entry on a fan wiki, where in-universe information is sufficient). Or do you disagree with that? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel particularly strongly about it either way though as we don't have access to the sources cited, I'm happy to assume they do have the coverage required. NemesisAT (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But nobody made such assertion - further, the editors like Toughpigs who expanded the article know how important such content would be and I have trouble believing they would not include it if they found it. Which leads us to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * We do have access to the source cited (see above), and it has been shown that the WP:WAF-compliant coverage is nonexistent. Avilich (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Deletion review/Log/2022 February 5. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The character is already covered here https://archiecomics.fandom.com/wiki/Captain_Flag. If anybody is genuinely interested in preserving the information, that is probably a better place to start than an encyclopedia which explicitly mandates that articles on fictional topics not be limited to in-universe details. Avilich (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep; the argument that the information is available elsewhere so we don't need it could be applied to everything in Wikipedia. People are interested in who illustrated these comic-hero strips, what other series were being produced at the same time, that sort of background information, which is indeed in the article, and referenced. We do not need erudite professorial secondary sources to prove notability; we just need to prove that people independent of the source are publishing reasonably meaningful material. We don't expect reviews of Bollywood films to contain analysis about their exemplification of 2020's political thought, and nor should we require this of 1940's entertainment-fiction. Elemimele (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For notability to be demonstrated, sources are needed to prove that this topic has received MOS:REALWORLD coverage. Publication history and plot info are trivial stuff that all fictional topics have, and so aren't enough on their own (WP:PLOT). As far as I can see, the current sourcing does not have any of this. Benton 1992 appears to have little more than passing mentions, and Mougin 2020 is basically only plot information and publication history. Markstein's Toonopedia is a deadlink but presumably just the same, and the rest seem to have only plot summaries as well. Avilich (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Giving this another week post DRV so we don't end up back at DRV. Fictional characters are a complicated mess. Can we send them all to schools where they can earn Olympic medals at a place that may not be geographically recognized? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  01:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * keep meets WP:N with sources discussed in DRV. Arguments that WP:PLOT and MOS:REALWORLD apply as part of our inclusion guidelines are a stretch.  We meet the notability guidelines and it's possible to write a short article that meets the MOS with what we have.  Hobit (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sourcing exists to meet GNG, and, per Hobit, I note that the arguments put forth in the DRV, that independent RS'es which wouldn't align with our fiction MOS'es if they were Wikipedia content are inherently incapable of contributing to notability, entirely wrongheaded. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. Dimadick (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Okay, in my opinion articles about fictional topics should contain more than a summary of the plot. Notability means importance. What makes this topic important? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by and cutting straight to the chase. That's the very crucial point that many people here seem to be ignoring. Yes, we can source the plot with some "secondary" picture books. That doesn't mean the topic is notable. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficient sourcing to meet MOS criteria. WP:PLOT, perhaps ironically, does not actually mention plot. It did at one time, but that did not prevail. Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 18:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge the real world information to List of Archie Comics characters. The sources in the article prove existence, but nothing more. Tellingly, there's a citation from American Comic Book Chronicles: 1965-1969, when the character was revived for one issue. I checked ACBC: 1940-1944 last night, which covered the time period where the character would have been most notable, and "Captain Flag" was not mentioned. Captain Flag was not mentioned in The Ten-Cent War, a book focused exclusively on WWII-era, WWII-themed comic books, nor in The Superhero Symbol, which has a chapter or two on the use of patriotic heroes. The average page views from 11/1/21 thru 12/31/21 was 7 per day, so it's a valid search term and I believe it's worth preserving the creators and debut issue somewhere. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not be opposed to a redirect or merge either, and amended my vote accordingly. Avilich (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * He added another "g" to his name, wore a regular uniform (or uniforms), got promoted and served in the Korean War. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge to List of Archie Comics characters per Argento Surfer. While the character is mentioned in some sources, none of those sources actually constitutes WP:SIGCOV. Several sources have been added to the article since the AFD started, but none of them appear to actually be significant coverage, and several of them are on a completely different character and don't even mention Captain Flag, so I'm not even sure why they were added. Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources are poor, but others have a page+ of material. We don't delete (or merge) because some of the sourcing is poor.  In this case, we've identified sources that do cover the topic in depth.  The only real debate at this point is if sources that are mostly (but not entirely) about plot are useful toward the GNG.  It's a fairly novel argument to claim that they aren't, but I'm really not seeing any debate about having sources that spend significant ink covering the topic. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently sourced article to meet the notability criteria. I agree with Dimadick. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Archie Comics characters, as per Argento Surfer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - of the sources, they all are either indiscriminate collections of information, explicitly describe Captain Flag as "obscure" and "secondary", don't mention them at all, or are unarchived and therefore inaccessible. If Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, then why are we sourcing from indiscriminate collections of information? It just doesn't make much sense. casualdejekyll  20:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is a term of art that indicates if the WP:GNG or appropriate WP:SNG is met. Lots of detailed sources that call something "obscure" or "secondary" are better than a handful of sources that say "important" or "primary".  Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * My argument here is based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is an explicit exception to GNG, and I quote: "'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." (Emphasis mine.) casualdejekyll  22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Still the same problem as I see it. What makes this "indiscriminate"?  The fact that some sources have used the term "obscure"?  See WP:NOTPAPER.  This isn't a database or something else that WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists.  I'm not sure how your !vote isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  The key is we have sources.  That you don't consider the issue of import isn't very relevant. Even if the sources consider it minor, that's not something our inclusion guidelines really care about.  Hobit (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So, we're not allowed to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but we're allowed to build an article based almost entirely off of sources that ARE INDISCRIMINATE (the only exception as far as I'm aware being ref 4). That's what you're saying here, at least. Note that as far as I can tell, all sources are simply just "Summary-only descriptions of works" (quote from, who would have guessed, INDISCRIMINATE). If the only thing you can source is a summary-only description of the work, then how are you supposed to cite any statement that isn't a summary only description of the work? casualdejekyll  00:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They really aren't. They include publication dates, authors and other things. The article, as it stands, is short, but covers lots of non-plot things. So can an article be written with our sources that isn't struggling with being pure plot?  Yes, we have one. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lots of non-plot things? Please name them. The only non-plot coverage we have is publication history, which is simply verifying the existence of the topic in the real world. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the two paragraphs we have in publication history and the two paragraphs that form the lead are all non-plot. That's more than enough for a reasonable article. People claiming that the sources we have can't support anything other than plot are shown to be wrong by the existent article. Hobit (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe what Piotrus is asking for when he says "non-plot things" would include reviews of the material, analysis of the character's impact on other heroes, the relationship between this material and the creator's other works, or something notable from the publication history that's unique (or close to it). Since the publication date and creators can be sourced from the comic book, sourcing them from third party sources doesn't add anything to the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Argento Surfer Indeed. It's also common sense that any plot summary can be pointlessly padded with information about publication history in real world of the work it appeared in. That, however, doesn't make that work notable - it's just a WP:CATALOGUE-type of addition. Notability has to be shown through sources that treat the subject as important enough to discuss beyond a pure catalogue-like mention. Which is why the relevant policy is called WP:NOTABILITY not WP:EXISTENCE. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Archie Comics. Maybe make a new section and title it "Miscellaneous Superheroes"? Fix it up a little, and rephrase the information in ways that are varied from the sources of information. I don't recommend removing information simply because it is obscure, but if it has any value. If the aforementioned "Captain Flag" article is not relevant to the comic publishers history, or doesn't contribute any worthwhile information, then I agree that you should delete it. However, obscure information has just as much place on this site as not obscure information because who is to say that it is any less useful than the most commonly known information out there? I advise that we stay wary and don't jump the gun when an article doesn't have popular information. GoofyDonut (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Archie Comics characters as there is not enough to indicate notability of this fictional character separate from the larger cast of Archie Comics characters. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Captain Flag is listed in the Encyclopedia Britannica along with others. Just the name, nothing else about him.  Newspapers.com shows results to sort through at  but apparently my account expired.  I just went to the Wikipedia Library page  and clicked the button to request to "extend" it.  Anyway, from the sources already found, I say notability is already proven.  If anyone has a working account to a newspaper search site, you can surely find more.   D r e a m Focus  17:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, you found one trivial mention, sources which you are not willing to look and are not even sure exist, and no rebuttal to the argument that the article fails the relevant NOT policy concerning fictional topics (which in turn invalidates notability altogether)? Avilich (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I too am doubtful that a passing mention in Britannica and a search result (which may or may not be related to the character) could address the concerns discussed above. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The last comment made by Hobit is a rebuttal to your argument. No need to just repeat what others have said.  And I said the existing sources found and mentioned by others was enough to convince me, I just pointing to where even more things can be found should any have access.  Some of the summaries that appear from search results for "Captain Flag" and "comic" are about the character.   D r e a m Focus  22:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Piotr's counterpoint above. Which of the sources do you think provides the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:GNG? MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep sourcing is adequate to establish notability. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.