Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentleman (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 Spider-Man enemies in other media. Selectively.  Sandstein  20:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Gentleman (comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a non-notable character from a minor children's novel series, secondary/tertiary material to a Marvel Comics series. A lone WP:OR editor (page creator) seems to strongly believe this character corresponds to a small role in a popular film series. However, no references exist to that effect. The apparent footnotes on the page are actually just "ref" tags enclosing further WP:OR claims, and without any cited sources. Further, if the correspondence did exist, the character would still not be notable, as articles are not handed out to unnamed characters with one or two lines from movies, even popular movies. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Defense / Keep: I just added several reliable third party sources to confirm that the Gentleman is indeed in the film series. These sources include The New York Times, MTV News, Entertainment Weekly and Vanity Fair. I'd also like to add that the Gentleman's role in the Amazing Spider-Man films was not a "minor role", as the character served as a major antagonist for the series. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The character is not a "major antagonist" - simply not true. The character has a couple lines in each movie, in a single scene, is never shown and does nothing within the movie. Not notable. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The character may not have had much screen time but he was indeed a major antagonist in the film. He was a behind the scenes villain (much akin to Chris Cooper's Norman Osborn, who also didn't have much screen time) who was heavily implied to have a vital role in the events seen in the film. He was also confirmed to appear in the now defunct sequels to the film.


 * The amount of screen time a villain has in a film is irrelevant to their importance (or lack of importance). Hannibal Lecter didn't have very much screen time in The Silence of the Lambs, Darth Vader didn't have all that much screen time in the first Star Wars film, and Thanos has barely had any screen time at all in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Darkknight2149 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, you're not giving an honest description of the character or your article, and it's obvious to anyone who has seen the movie.


 * Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter aren't comparable at all; other characters refer to them by name many times when they are off-screen, and they appear throughout their respective films, not in single scenes at the end. (And it's possible the sources you claim pulled their information from the very article being debated and the other information you've salted throughout Wikipedia.)


 * Imagine asking the average person walking out of Star Wars or Silence of the Lambs to describe Darth Vader or Hannibal Lecter, respectively. Anyone who saw the movie would be able to describe the character with ease. Now imagine approaching people coming out of either Amazing Spider-Man film, and asking them to describe "The Gentleman" or "Gustav Fiers". They'd give you a blank stare and ask you, "Who the hell is that?" ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you asked someone about the "man in the hat" in the film, they would know EXACTLY who you are talking about, and considering he was referred to in dialogue as "Mr. Fiers" and was listed in the credits as "The Gentleman (Gustav Fiers)," yes they probably would know who the Gentleman is. And the problem with that question is this: ask the average person about the Pazzi family (for instance), chances are they aren't going to know who they are. Only history buffs and historians are going to recognise the Pazzi name. Does that mean that they are not notable enough to have an article? No. I'm not saying the Gentleman is anywhere near as important as the Pazzi family, I'm simply pointing out the error in your question.


 * As for the honesty thing, I only claimed that the Gentleman plays a vital role in the films. And he does, as he served as an important antagonist to the franshise.


 * And I did NOT salt information for the Gentleman all over Wikipedia. While you have falsely accused me of advertising an article I created, you clearly don't realise that most of that information was originally placed in the articles by other articles by OTHER editors and even pre-dates the existence of the Gentleman article (such is the case in Sinister Six). I'd advise you remember to assume good faith before making wild accusations such as this one and the one you just made here. And no, several reliable sources did not pull CONFIRMED information (confirmed in featurettes, by the director, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2 movie itself) from a single Wikipedia article. As a matter of fact, the director was teasing the existence of the Gentleman in the films long before the article was conceived. Darkknight2149 (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We require significant coverage of a film character in independent, reliable sources to have an article about a character. As far as I see, no such coverage of this character exists. Please correct me if I am wrong. References to sources connected to the comics or films are worthless for establishing notability, and I see nothing of substance in independent reliable sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The article contains a combination of primary and secondary sources. The article is cited by a number of third party sources, such as Slash Film, Entertainment Weekly, MTV, Vanity Fair, ComicBook.com and the New York Times. Darkknight2149 (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP is not a fanzine.--Rpclod (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this article considered more fancruft than the other character articles pertaining to WikiProject Comics? Darkknight2149 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Selective merge/redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies in other media, as we generally do in such cases. Cavarrone  07:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this seems sensible to me. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this decision, as long as we add selective key information from the article to List of Spider-Man enemies in other media. The Gentleman article is lengthy, so obviously we will lose the vast majority of the article. Darkknight2149 (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing to Selective merge/redirect per Cavarrone and Darkknight2149.--Rpclod (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2015 (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.