Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Wade Eiling


 * 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 well-informed discussion has commendably focused on arguments and counter-arguments based on Wikipedia guidelines and supporting evidence. At this point, there does appear to be a very narrow consensus trending in favor of keeping the article, due to the additional sources found during the course of this AfD.  JGHowes   talk  23:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

General Wade Eiling

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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." It was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with no meaningful rationale. Let's try to stay civil, shall we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:49, 19 November 2020 (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  08:49, 19 November 2020 (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  08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:49, 19 November 2020 (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  08:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is unconvincing as it lacks evidence in support of its assertions. There are obvious alternative to deletion and, as that policy states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", that's what we should do. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is coverage for the CW iteration of the character, but I was unable to find coverage for the original comic book version.  Dark knight  2149  17:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. He is one of the notable Justice League villains even when he made use of a Shaggy Man's body. Plus, is right about his suggestion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:ATD is not some kind of magic anti-deletion argument. You have to show how this content can be better used to improve another. Merging pure plot summary generally tends to make articles worse, not better. This fails to meet the standards of WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The nomination is convincing as it displays enough evidence in support of its assertions. The article discussed appears to be nothing but a plot summary about an un-encyclopedic comic book character, whose coverage is limited to plot summaries only and nothing else. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  04:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: No amount of editing can make a subject notable if the sources do not exist. The Keep votes do not mention any sources. Article does not have WP:SIGCOV "addressing the topic directly and in detail".   // Timothy ::  talk  23:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Normally I would say redirect, but the character has an entry at both Captain Atom and List of Justice League enemies, so there is no clear target. Any relevant information can be added in either of those places, but I'm not seeing any sources that would pass GNG, unfortunately. Rhino131 (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am working on these articles like List of DC Comics characters: G to potentially be places to merge to. I haven’t made it to that part of the alphabet yet though but it’s similar to List of DC Comics characters: A for prose of how it can work out. Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I have changed to Keep based on the sources provided below by Daranios, because they contain real-world analysis of the character. I consider the sources to contain enough analysis to pass the minimum standard of GNG (I have a feeling some might argue the sources are still just plot summaries, but I would strongly disagree). Also, if the article is merged this information would have to go with it, and as I said before there is no clear merge target. Therefore the best course is to keep the article. Rhino131 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment A reception section has been added, which I consider enough to pass the minimum standards of GNG. I'm not interested in wading into the debate below, but I wanted to reaffirm my keep comment based on the new reception section. Rhino131 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a lot of info out there on the General and he definitely meets the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to link that "lot of info"? Or should we just take your word on it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. BlueD954 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But why do you think so? Daranios (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per the Hollywood Reporter coverage. When comics characters appear in live-action movies and TV, they tend to get some coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep because secondary sources indeed do exist. I have added another one that gives characterization, voiding any "there is only plot summary" arguments. In addition, Der Dritte Weltkrieg als Reifeprüfung and Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization give character analysis and symbolic importance. These together should make for a reasonable Reception and Analysis paragraph. Together with the publication/on-screen history as mentioned by Toughpigs, this can give a significant non-plot portion, satisfying the WP:ALLPLOT requirement. And together with the plot-summary, supported secondary sources, we can have a decent-sized, non-stubby article, which is why we have WP:GNG in the first place. Daranios (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's indeed is an analytical sentence and not a plot summary. Unfortunately, it seems to be just a sentence, and GNG asks us for a non-trivial, in-depth coverage. I have concerns that a single sentence of analysis still is trivial and does not meet GNG, but I'd totally support merging this referenced sentence of proper analysis into some other article, before this gets deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I would prefer a merge to deletion. But as usual, on this point I am of the opinion that when a source has character analysis, then by its nature it's not trivial, no matter the length. And WP:GNG does not require sigificant coverage within any one source. It requires several sources, and it requires significant coverage overall, as the distinction the guideline makes is whether or not a non-stubby article can be created based on the sources. If the sources I have added alone would not fullfill that, it should be no problem to fullfill that together with the other two sources that have been found, each more detailed than the ones I have already added. So again I remain with my keep opinion. Daranios (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided by Daranios. The article for the subject topic will likely never become good article level and that would be a WP:CMOS issue, but the sources indicate that the subject topic passes GNG standards and is notable. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am not sure there is enough to establish notability. But enough not to delete but possibly merge instead. Hence why I contested the overprodding. That is my rationale that Piotrus so desperately seeked that I failed to use according to him. So clarifying that. Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a lot of content (I don't really like comic-book stuff on Wikipedia in general) but the character definitely exists and there are sources that prove this. jp×g 06:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Relevant policy is notability, not existence. Most of stuff that exists is not notable. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep We have a wonderful large set of articles on related characters in the same comic book universe. It would be a shame to lose individual puzzle pieces by selectively deleting small parts. I would also like to draw your attention to similar AfD nominations for Abel, Cain, and Plastique, where either no consensus was found, or the article was kept due to good improvements. I think some amount of work on this piece can also salvage a good addition to the encyclopedia.--Concertmusic (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - The actual coverage that displays any kind of analysis or commentary that goes beyond plot or casting information is extremely trivial, and is certainly not enough to establish notability for the character. Redirecting it to List of DC Comics characters: G for now, preserving the history in case a merge becomes feasible after the work done on that list by Jhenderson, would also be completely acceptable to me, as well.  It should just not be kept as an independent article.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that the treatment by e.g. Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization is "extremely trivial"? Daranios (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because its several paragraphs simply summarizing the plots of a couple episodes he was in, and then a single, short paragraph of actual analysis, most of which is still just made up of quotes from the show. The rest of the section on militarism is not actually about him. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you see here what I see in there. I don't say it's epic in size or message, but I say it's commentary, and all in all we have surely more than half a paragraph. Daranios (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging the lists. Should be motivation for me to be back on and maybe be more complete on them sometime. Jhenderson 7 7 7  12:45, 15 December 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, Missvain (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the beginning of the AfD, a Reception and analysis section based on the already suggested secondary sources has been created, which now amounts to more than "a single sentence of analysis", as Piotrus had critized at an earlier point. Please take this material into account for the delete/merge/keep decision. Daranios (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Justice League Unlimited and the Politics of Globalization looks very good and discusses the character for at least two paragraphs if not more. One more quality source like this would met GNG requirement for multiple non-trivial coverage and I'd withdraw this nom then. Can we find it? If not, I'd support merging the reception into whatever list summarizes him. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not see any more so far. As length of sources is not an end in itself, and for the reasons already outlined, I think the other shorter treatments together are sufficient to fullfill the guidelines in place of one long one. As usual, we can agree to disagree on this point. I am curious how the decision will turn out in this case. Daranios (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Non-trivial sources are the only sources that matter. Overstating the importance of trivial sources helps nothing. It just makes an article look like a fluff piece with no substance. TTN (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If secondary sources contain something like character analysis, they are not trivial, no matter the length. Daranios (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If said "analysis" is but a single adjective, then, yes, it is absolutely trivial. If it's otherwise something that cannot be used to pass GNG, then it is trivial. Trivial does not inherently mean unworthy of inclusion if GNG is otherwise satisfied, but it does mean that it alone means nothing to passing GNG. Wikipedia is not all encompassing, so we don't need to bother with something that receives no actual attention. TTN (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So we are back to the "collectively" or not. Do I understand correctly, that you would go through the reception section one by one, and then say: Each of these sources contains too little to count, each is then trivial by your defintion? And then suddenly a whole paragraph is "trivial". I do not follow that argumentation, because we have a paragraph of non-plot reception information (+ more in the others). And why do we have the requirements of WP:GNG: "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". There is more than half a paragraph there, so why should that be of little value and deleted?
 * In another vein, if you consider the secondary sources present too little to support a stand-alone article, do you still want to delete it - rather than merge? Your deletion vote based on "pure plot summary" should not be merged still stands, but the state of the article has changed since then. Daranios (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of the sources provided, only the one mentioned by Piotrus has any value. The rest could be trashed without losing anything worthwhile. Not all commentary is equal, and some little fluff sentence or sentence fragment is not commentary in my opinion. As for merging, I don't see any benefit in retaining an entire page just because someone added the a source in the last 1% of its existence. You have access to the source, so you can simply add it wherever you see fit. There's no inherent benefit to keeping the page history just for the sake of that, but a redirect is also a suitable enough outcome. TTN (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Aside from what they give us contentwise, those other sources also help us in providing balance: Two affirm what the most extensive one says about the character, one gives a different characterization. I think not supporting a merge of content based on a secondary source that even you think has some value and bringing in timing (and let's not forget that secondary sources giving publication history have been in the article a long time) are not in keeping with WP:AtD and WP:NEXIST.

Be that as it may, I thank both you and Piotrus for giving your arguments about the newly found sources (which other deletion voters haven't). I am awating with some anticipation what the closer will make of all our arguments. Daranios (talk) 19:25, 21 December 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. Relisting comment: It seems, from the discussion here, like article improvement remains ongoing and that further improvement could lead to a clearer sense of notability and so I am giving this a third relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based particularly on the newly added secondary source coverage. AGFing on the print sources and looking particularly at the IRSF article, there's certainly enough to pass the GNG. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 00:30, 29 December 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.