Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flycatcher (comics)


 * 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 merge to List of Fables characters. Daniel (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Flycatcher (comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to the most trivial of mentions. Seems like a waste of time AfD that never have been deprodded, unless I'm searching incorrectly. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep It's easy to find coverage in sources such as Contemporary Comics Storytelling and so policy WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 18:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you really still not look at the sources you post? How hard is it to take three seconds to read that and realize it's a panel by panel analysis of a page featuring the character and not actual commentary on the character? TTN (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The work is written by a Professor in Comparative Literature, was published by the University of Nebraska Press and I consider it quite satisfactory for our purpose. Per the fable of the miller, his son and the donkey, this may not please everyone but so it goes.  My !vote stands, being based on both policy and evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per usual, you dodge the actual point with an absolute nonsense rebuttal. Please explain how several pages dissecting the framing of comic panels is relevant to an article on the character. Being mentioned in the context of the dissection does not itself inherently equate to coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The analysis says things like "The following panels take the reader into the fictional mind of Flycatcher ... We see the facial expression of Flycatcher and construct his intuitive response." These descriptions and insights are clearly WP:SIGCOV. Q.E.D.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, you dodge the question. Please explain how the analysis of the panels is relevant to the character rather than simply using the character as a vehicle to convey their point on framing a character's emotional state and inner thoughts through drawings and panel layout. TTN (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , Setting aside the point made by TTN that the Flycatcher is not the main subject of the analysis, two sentences are hardly sufficient for SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Fables characters - That list is a complete mess and needs some massive cleanup, but Flycatcher is actually one of the major characters of the series that should actually be covered there. I found a small bit of actual analysis of the character that goes beyond plot summary in this book, but its the only decent thing I could find.  As described in detail by TTN already, the source mentioned by Andrew above is not actually about the character himself, and contains no actual information that could be integrated into the article in anyway or provide notability.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Fables characters. Not enough for a stand-alone article, but a redirect is reasonable. SOFTDELETE to facilitate merging and to avoid hassle in years to come, maybe he will get some SIGCOV and then this can be more easily restored. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Fables characters, as not enough coverage for a separate page. Riteboke (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (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.