Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godspeed (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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Godspeed (character)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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. PROD removed with the usual meaningless copy-paste rationale by usual mass dePRODDer, so - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:33, 29 August 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  01:33, 29 August 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  01:33, 29 August 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  01:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:NOTPLOT and fails to establish notability per WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. He is notable for being the first Flash villain to be introduced during the "DC Rebirth." In addition, he was able to be adapted into the Arrowverse. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The character is notable according to whom? Sources, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The character has been receiving plenty of third party coverage, especially after his role in the Flash TV series. He was also one of the more critically acclaimed characters to come out of DC Rebirth. All it needs is someone to improve the article. And as is pointed out a lot recently, WP:GNG refers to the existence of sources, not the quality of sourcing in the article, so "fails to establish notablity" isn't valid.  Dark knight  2149  06:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a very strong argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My argument isn't Google hits. My point is that the character has received extensive coverage from third party sources and that coverage isn't difficult to find in a simple Google search (even on the first couple of pages). There's easily enough there to turn this into a GA-class article.  Dark knight  2149  10:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But if you just link google search results, the top of which are clearly unreliable (wiki, fandom), then it is, well, GOOGLEHITS + WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. If you saw a good source there, or several, at least link those, and preferably, tell us what makes them valid (since so often people just link stuff here without reading them...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not making the argument that "There must be sources", I'm pointing out that there are sources and I'm beginning to wonder if you performed a WP:BEFORE test at all. I counted several on the first few pages alone.  Dark knight  2149  06:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * first 10 google hits: 1) Wikipedia article 2) Fandom 3) Fandom 4) official site for DC comics 5) a blog on 4) 6) another fan wiki or a copy of Wikipedia article 7) 24 Best Godspeed images 8) 22 Best GodSpeed images 9) Facebook post. Ok, 9 hits since that's what I see on the first page of your results. Which of those are among your "several" good sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Not only does this character have extensive coverage, and was one of the more acclaimed villains to come out of DC Rebirth, but we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. To say that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, is frankly reaching.
 * https://wegotthiscovered.com/comicbooks/exclusive-interview-joshua-williamson-talks-flash-teases-rogues/
 * https://www.cbr.com/the-flash-godspeed-comic-series-comparison/
 * https://screenrant.com/flash-season-6-godspeed-new-power-speed-explained/
 * https://www.newsweek.com/flash-season-7-spoilers-godspeed-villain-august-heart-1507779
 * https://ew.com/tv/the-flash-grant-gustin-godspeed-mystery/
 * https://tvline.com/2020/05/31/the-flash-season-7-real-godspeed/
 * https://comicbook.com/dc/news/the-flash-who-is-godspeed/
 * https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2019/04/16/the-flash-godspeed-is-here
 * https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-flash-season-5-episode-18-review-godspeed/
 * https://io9.gizmodo.com/heres-your-first-look-at-the-flashs-godspeed-and-his-u-1834062134
 * https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a32728821/the-flash-season-7-godspeed/
 * https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/godspeed-joshua-williamson-on-seeing-his-flash-characters-on-tv
 * https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2471772/the-flash-isnt-done-with-the-villain-godspeed-yet-thank-heavens
 * https://www.comingsoon.net/tv/news/1082137-flash-season-6-set-photos-return-of-godspeed
 * https://www.cbr.com/the-flash-joshua-williamson-finish-line-interview/
 * https://comicbook.com/dc/news/dc-kills-a-speedster-in-the-flash/
 * https://www.cbr.com/flash-joshua-williamson-explains-godspeed-always-going-die/
 * https://bamsmackpow.com/2018/09/19/flash-joshua-williamson-writing-different-speedsters/
 * There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well. Not only has this character received extensive coverage, but also an especially impressive amount for a comic book villain that didn't exist before 2016.  Dark knight  2149  06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The first link is a WP:INTERVIEW that contains 3 or 4 sentences that don't go beyond a plot summary. As for others - googlehits. Explain why those references provide in-depth, non-trivial, independent coverage, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you really about to play the "nitpick the sources" game? Because we have an entire assortment of reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media. Literally anyone could turn this into a GA-class article, but by all means, pick out a couple of specific links and nitpick them to death.
 * Likewise - TV Line, ComicBook.com, ComingSoon.net, Comic Book Resources, Cinema Blend, Entertainment Weekly, i09 Gizmodo, Screen Rant, SyFy, Digital Spy, and Den of Geek are all examples of reliable community-vetted sources on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with any of them, I would suggest taking it to WP:RSN.  Dark knight  2149  06:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * - By the way, that's not what WP:GOOGLEHITS means.  Dark knight  2149  06:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OMG.. throwing 18 random links at the discussion, possibly expecting some might stick, is not a helpful argument. I need to open every one now and read it... Per WP:V responsibility to show they are relevant is on you, please... - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Substantiating notability by demonstrating extensive coverage from reputable sources is not a helpful argument? Per WP:ITSCRUFT, maybe you should have clicked on them before ignorantly declaring them "random". I really hope the closing administrator is taking note of how unbelievably silly the opposition is being.  Dark knight  2149  19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella: I did that, and posted links to three of those sources below. I agree that posting bare links with no explanation is impolite. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * An explanation was given - and  Per WP:BADGER, no one is obligated to hold the proposer's hand through each and every individual source, particularly when it's the nominator's job to substantiate why the topic isn't notable or worthy of deletion. 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That’s okay, I’m almost done reading them. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources. There is clearly lots of information about the creation, development, and reception of this character in both the comics and the TV show. Many more reliable sources than most comics characters nominated for deletion recently. Rhino131 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: From Darkknight2149's sources, I think that "The Flash: Joshua Williamson Explains Why (Godspeed) Was Always Going to Die" from CBR is a real-world bit of reporting on creative decisions made by the writer. "Flash boss reveals which main villain will return in season 7" from Digital Spy demonstrates that Godspeed is important enough to be a teaser for the upcoming season. "Here's Your First Look at The Flash's Godspeed, and His Uncomfortable God-Crotch" from iO9 is similar; even Godspeed's costume is important enough to be a teaser. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I ddo appreciate that you (and GCB?) took time to read through those and suggest which are the best. has the problem of being half plot summary and half WP:INTERVIEW with the artist who wrote the story - I think such sources are fine to expand the article, but not for establishing notability.  is a brief 2-3 sentence mention that this character may appear in a TV show. So is, except it also seems to make some joke about his appearance. I am sorry, but are those really the best we can find? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The coverage checks off all of the boxes at WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and there is a enough coverage between critical reception, behind-the-scenes information, the writer's intentions, in-depth coverage of his adapted appearances, and plot information to properly flesh out the article. Likewise, interviews and statements from the creators are perfectly usable when there is adequate secondary coverage. iO9 is also considered a reliable news source on Wikipedia, so this feels more like a WP:RSN issue. The coverage is a lot more than just plot summaries and passing mentions, as much as you trying to make it sound that way. I have to echo what said - If not a single one of the 18 examples above are reliable to you (as you told Dream Focus), your standards are simply too high. Much higher than the community's.  Dark  knight  2149  07:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Significant coverage found in reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus  00:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling us which particular sources you think have significant coverage? I have yet to see a single one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe spend more time clicking on the links and looking. https://comicbook.com/dc/news/the-flash-reveals-first-official-look-at-godspeed/ https://www.cbr.com/flash-joshua-williamson-explains-godspeed-always-going-die/ etc etc.   D r e a m Focus  03:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Which I already discussed above, if you'd care to read something from the discussion above? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you argue nonstop with everyone else no matter what in these many AFDs you are constantly starting, and never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable, why would I waste time reading anything you write anymore?   D r e a m Focus  13:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @Dream Focus, could you refactor your comment? I find "never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable" particularly problematic because it isn't true. Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In several of these nominations, that actually has been the case. Judge Death is another one of the more egregious examples. Without naming any names, there is a degree of confirmation bias in many of the nominations from specific recurring nominators.  Dark knight  2149  21:06, 6 September 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.