Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Man (character)


 * 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 redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Majority of voters suggest redirecting. The keep rationales are extremely weak. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Dragon Man (character)

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

WP:ALLPLOT article, fails WP:GNG. Better fit for Marvel wiki than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Comics and animation.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Cannot find significant independent coverage in secondary sources. As the nom. says, this is all plot and marvel references. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect and maybe merge a bit to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. No need to delete this type of fancruft while we have those lists (should be have those lists is an interesting question...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like the lists are a resting ground for entirely non-notable material. If they were restricted to characters that were notable, they would be far shorter, and it is likely what has to happen due to the sheer amount of throwaway characters used in comics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to above target. We really need to gut Wikipedia of these obscure superhero articles. Dronebogus (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep based on additional sources added to the article today. BOZ (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources are incredibly low quality, I am surprised you would consider them as good.
 * "Scoot Allan of CBR.com ranked Dragon Man 1st in their "5 Smartest Robots In Marvel Comics" list" is not significant coverage. ESPECIALLY when dealing with comics characters, every single one of them surely got a trivial mention in a content farmy (and probably soon to be AI generated and spammed en masse) listicle. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep : I think this page is notable enough. Higher Further Faster (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Not an argument. Dronebogus (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - Notability for an article requires that the concept of the Dragon Man character, as a subject in itself, is the subject of sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and that the sources that demonstrate this are independent of the subject. On these grounds this article fails. As ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ says above, the new sources added to the article do not demonstrate this attention independent from marvel fandom. But lack of notability for an article does not mean we cannot mention the character. There are lists and marvel pages where this character can be mentioned. I re-affirm my belief that this is not a notable subject for an article, but I am content with redirect as an outcome, or even merge and redirect. I believe keep would be the wrong result. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: D - As stated above, the newly added sources are extremely low quality. The only ones that could possibly even actually count as a genuine source are just mentions in "top ten" churnalism lists. I know there have been some debates in previous AFD if those "top ten" style lists from sites like CBR even count as reliable sources, but even if they do, the coverage in them is not significant coverage at all. Outside of that, the new sources are things like the name simply being stated in a list of characters available in a product with absolutely no discussion, which does not actually count as coverage at all. And when they're the best that can be found on the character, there is not enough to sustain an article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Rorshacma. The sources don't meet the standards of reliable and independent, with information other than a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2023 (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.