Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deathbolt


 * 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 no consensus. There are sources, but there is no consensus on the question if they constitute a substantial coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Deathbolt

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. Sources added after the PROD are two junk listicles and a bunch of topical pop culture stuff about the character's casting that provide no actual coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I added the new sources to this article and indicated I would make efforts in the future to find additional sources and expand the article further, but the nominator immediately took it to AFD anyway, which didn't strike me as a good faith move. In any event, I think the sources already added go a long way toward indicating notability for this subject, and there are others out there that can and should allow for additional expansions. The fact that this character has been featured on both comic books and television further indicates significance... — Hunter Kahn 17:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect to List of supporting Arrow characters where he is already covered - The character in the comics is pretty minor, and does not appear to have anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Just a smattering of fansites/wikis and plot summaries.  All of the sources currently in the article are actually covering the Arrow-verse version, many of them are not from reliable sources, and most of them are merely the casting announcement.  None of it is enough to pass the WP:GNG as an independent article, but could probably justify a Redirect to the appropriate entry for the Arrow-verse version, as that appears to be the more significant incarnation.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of supporting Arrow characters. Just plot information for a limited appearance, nowhere near enough to convince me this needs a stand-alone article (WP:NOTPLOT, WP:GNG, WP:SPINOUT). – sgeureka t•c 08:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't see "topical pop culture stuff about the character's casting that provide no actual coverage on the character" as being supported by policy. Hunter Kahn located multiple references that are specifically about the character. "Pop culture stuff" is an acceptable measure of notability for a pop culture topic. -- Toughpigs (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If a source can add zero relevant text to an article, it is not significant coverage of the topic. Simply mentioning that the character exists and is played by X actor requires but a single source. Adding ten fluff sources mentioning the character a single time does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From the April 2015 article on Bustle.com: "Deathbolt is a DC Comics character, though the Arrow writers tweaked his powers to suit this universe. Jeff Simmons made his first appearance in 1983 as a convicted murderer who barely survives a plane crash. Supervillain the Ultra-Humanite saves Simmons, while also setting him up with some useful powers by essentially turning his body into a giant battery. Comic book Deathbolt can wield and control electromagnetic energy, which means he never has to deal with a smoke detector that won't stop BEEPING... IGN reports that the version of Simmons we'll see in "Broken Arrow" has the ability to harness and weaponize plasma energy... Lightning and fire are two of plasma's greatest hits, and per this description of him, will bend to Deathbolt's will. This is not great news for Team Arrow, since they need at least one week off from protecting Starling City just to deal with their interpersonal problems... It seems that Simmons' real superpower is in getting Oliver Queen to accept help from romantic rival Ray Palmer... One thing's for sure: Deathbolt won't be vanquished tonight. He's already booked for a Flash appearance later this season. Another metahuman with a bone to pick with the man we know as Harrison Wells, I suppose. Then what or who does he need from Starling City? It looks like the events of Wednesday's Arrow will just be the beginning of whatever Simmons is planning." -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * And? There is nothing there. It's a summary of the comic character, basic details about the adaptation, and some basic pop-culture dribble. There is no commentary. There is no unique context that the news article provides to add to the article. There are nine similar articles currently cited. You only need one for the context of the character's casting. Anything else, unless it provides some kind of unique commentary, can be attributed directly to the show. If secondary sources can be replaced with primary sources, that means the secondary sources are useless. The issue with a lot of these comic AfDs seems to be that rather than an objective look into the topic's notability, it's rather an attempt to "save" the topic. While you would think those would be the same thing, the mindset of saving something leads to a major bias in what's acceptable for sourcing. TTN (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, that argument goes way beyond the notability policy. The article discusses the history and powers of the character, the differences between the original version and the television adaptation, and the casting. I don't believe there's a requirement for "unique commentary" from each individual source. You've moved the goalposts with each comment so far, first saying that the only coverage is "junk listicles", then that they "simply mention that the character exists", and now you're saying that the non-listicle multi-paragraph article is "basic" and "dribble". I agree that there isn't book-length critical commentary on this character, but the subject meets the basic grounds for notability. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles are completely devoid of relevant content. We need to take a look at the context sources provide and accurately judge the worth of their inclusion. It doesn't matter if the websites, books, etc are reliable sources if they do not provide anything substantial, like those encyclopedias of comic characters people in this space like to cite despite them having literally nothing the comics themselves could not provide. First and foremost, listicles and pop culture sites are the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalistic content. They should not be relied upon for the main content of an article. Secondly, these articles in particular are great examples of why not to utilize them. They're just the same thing spread over five websites with little deviation aside from the writer's speculation on what's to come. TTN (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think the problem is that certain people get in the "mindset of saving something," as TTN puts it. I think the problem is that certain people are, for whatever reason, so set on deleting coverage of fictional content from this encyclopedia that they are seldom if ever satisfied when actual coverage of a topic can be identified, and they continue to argue in favor of deletion regardless. (I also disagree that TTN's subjective opinion of whether reliable sources are "bottom of the barrel" has any relevance. If it's a reliable source, it's a reliable source; there are no degrees of reliability, regardless of if individual uses don't like them.) The simple fact is that the article as it stands now after its expansion demonstrates coverage of the subject matter, beyond simple plot summary, in reliable sources that indicate notability. Could the article be further expanded and improved in the future? Yes. But I think it's sufficient as it stands now that should err on the side of inclusion and not delete it. — Hunter Kahn 13:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that a website that put out 35 listicles alone on February 1st has high editorial standards? Would you describe around 1,200 listicles a month at all allows for any in-depth thought? TTN (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, your subjective opinion about this reliable source has been noted. — Hunter Kahn 13:59, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That you pass off clear signs of poor sources as just an opinion is a bit frightening. If you were trying to do the same thing for a BLP on some obscure but still news-mentioned relative of a celebrity, I'm sure the article would be instantly deleted. TTN (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. I'm not trying to defend a source that's not reliable; CBR already has long been considered a WP:RS for this type of subject matter. I'm saying that you are trying to ignore/bypass the question of reliability and argue against its use simply because you don't like it. In my view, this speaks to a personal bias you have against subject matter like this, which is why you continue to argue for deletion even after sufficient sources are added to articles that you PROD, like this one. — Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 14:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's more that you have very poor sourcing standards in regards to comic characters if you think either this or the other articles active at AfD are up to snuff. It's one thing to argue about the fine details of the definition of "significant coverage," but another to argue that a source that mentions something a literal single time is at all relevant to a topic. TTN (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument might make sense if this entire article hinged on this one single citation and nothing else, but there are multiple sources utilized to indicate notability. Sure, some of them have shorter mentions than others, but that only means we're limited in how much content can be used cited from each particular source. As long as the source is reliable (which it is), we can cite what we can from it. That's how this works. Fortunately, there is sufficient coverage about this particular topic across the sources used that go beyond one-sentence mentions. (And, again, I'll point out that these are not the only sources that discuss this topic; I've just added enough to demonstrate notability for now.) The subjective fact that you don't like it or think it's an important topic (as demonstrated by your dismissal of the source shared above) speaks only to your personal biases and the illuminate the fact that you will continue to argue in favor of deletion no matter whether notability is established or how much the article is improved. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 14:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like you're mistakenly conflating two things. Whether something is a reliable source in general has nothing to do with the relevance of a source's inclusion in an article. Each source needs to be judged for its relevance to the topic and necessity in the article. Regardless of my opinion on junk pop culture articles, pretty much nothing of what has been added to this article helps it in any way. It still massively fails both WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. You can remove all but one of the articles on the characters casting with literally no important context lost. That's precisely why the significant coverage clause exists. That doesn't even begin with your OR-leaning writing in the Betty Clawman article. TTN (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I obviously disagree with your claim that nothing that has been added "helps the article in any way"; the article was previously unsourced altogether, so adding sources for verification purposes has obviously improved the article. (And, again, I'm not claiming these are the only sources available; I just added a few to demonstrate that there is significant coverage across multiple reliable sources.) Furthermore, this article is not all plot summary, and your off-topic WP:OR claim Betty Clawman is both 100% inaccurate and extremely insulting to me personally. But my feeling is that you want these articles deleted and no amount of sourcing or arguing will change your mind, so there's no need for us to continue this back-and-forth. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 21:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What real world context have you added? What have the sources provided? The other article isn't off topic because the the misrepresentation of the content of sources is about as close to OR as you can get without fully crossing the line, showing a lack of care in adding sourcing. TTN (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Suffice it to say, I disagree with your above statement and believe you are bordering on violating WP:NPA. But it has been suggested that I refrain from continuing this repetitive back-and-forth with you, and I will do so. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure I indented this right, but I want to point out that while CBR used to be the standard of excellence for comic coverage, it has fallen quite far since it was sold a few years ago. I'm personally very picky about what I'll use from them anymore. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge to List of supporting Arrow characters. There is insufficient coverage in reliable independent sourcing to establish independent notability, but the character is noteworthy enough for material to be presented there where WP:NNC will apply. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. He is a known Starman villain. Plus, I agree with the claims of and . --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)--Rtkat3 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - References added after nom, so keep, as per WP:HEY Samboy (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2020 (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.