Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crimesmith


 * 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Crimesmith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This topic fails to establish notability. The sources added in justification for removing the PROD are trivial coverage. 1 - Simply a factual description of the character. 2 - Preview is a bit jumbled, but again seems to be just a factual description of the character. 3 - Literally the only commentary is: "I liked the Crimesmith, I remember at the time thinking it was a little different." That is nowhere near meeting the criteria of significant coverage. TTN (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The three sources that I added to the article are:
 * The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes vol. 1: Batman by Michael L. Fleischer and Janet E. Lincoln, Macmillan (1976)
 * The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey (2008)
 * "Flashback: Batman Rising" in Back Issue #113 by Michael Eury, TwoMorrows Publishing (2019)
 * These sources "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". I agree that the sources provide factual information about the character. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You would describe "I liked the Crimesmith, I remember at the time thinking it was a little different." as significant coverage? TTN (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Neither version of the character has any kind of notability. If the information in the article is correct, one of them appeared in a single issue, and the other appeared in two issues.  The sources cited are not substantial and are pure plot summaries, aside from the one sentence quote by Marv Wofman mentioned by TTN.  Also, as the actual author of the story being discussed and the creator of that version of the character, the quote would not be considered independent.  As both characters were very minor, with no substantial coverage or lasting impact, merging or preserving the information here is not necessary.  Rorshacma (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and Rorshacma. Non-notable comic-book cruft, fails WP:GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . — Hunter Kahn 13:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. While WP:NOTPLOT is different than WP:GNG, and does not form part of it, being more about how to write an article rather than notability, the sources presented discuss the different iterations, and I do not regard them as being about the same character. I also do not see that the brief information presented in each source gives enough to be regarded as substantial. While there may be an argument for a redirect to List of Batman villains, that page is on the verge of breaching WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This character, in my opinion, does not pass WP:GNG. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Killer Moff. There doesn't seem to be any notable impact or general chatter about this character on the Internet, other than its inclusion in lists.-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  05:53, 9 February 2020 (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.