Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grail (DC Comics) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Speedily Closed, and a note that I will be mentioning this in a neutral statement at WP:AN because of concerns raised given the prior behaviour of TTN. Hiding T 21:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Grail (DC Comics)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a single AfD for just this topic. Unlike that Salvation, Texas mess of an article, this one did not gain anything relevant to the real world in the AfD. It only has a mention that it is actually in the series, and the other source doesn't even mention the topic in any way. It is still just a minor plot point that it already aptly described within a few sentences in the main article. TTN (talk) 13:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  14:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Only in-universe details that has no real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion, especially when the article contains out of universe details demonstrating real world significance.
 * Note that he also expanded upon "per nom", so you have absolutely no reason to spam that link. Also, your reference does not address this topic at all, only the comic in general, so it does not even assert real world significance. TTN (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned in article written by someone in the real world as an example of fictional use of something perceived as historical. Because it may not be important to you does not mean it is not to those who read the series or who study fictional organizations, particularly religious ones.  Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the article mentions that the comic focuses on the lore of the whole thing, not this specific fictional group, Grail. It would have to mention something like "the comic uses a group called Grail..." in order to be relevant. TTN (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as disruptive re-nomination a mere day later, but mostly per GFDL, i.e. part of article has been merged and as such attribution history must remain public. Moreover, per WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better, there is no reason whatsoever why at worst we would not redirect this verifiable aspect of a notable comic series.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I did attempt to redirect it, and that failed. Nothing has been merged to the article. You added a link and direct quote, neither of which actually originated in this article. And if anything is disruptive, it would be you attempting to force us to keep articles by "merging" information into them. TTN (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Afd closed calling for editors to discuss merges on talk pages, not immediately try again with AfDs. If your attempt to redirect failed, then apparently the community disagrees with that and you should not just dismiss them by repeatedly thinking you must be right and the article must be deleted. As for as merging goes, well, our policies and guideliens of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE assert that we use deletion as a last resort and try to do what we can with content as best as possible. There is no pressing need to redlink here and if you were okay with a redirect, then instead of a day later renominating should have started a merge and/or redirect discussion on the talk page per the actual close of the AfD. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion would not work. There is nothing to merge, and either way, nobody would respond to such a discussion anyway. Even then, like before, some user or anon would dig it up again, which is why I nominated this in the first place. There is no proper forum for discussing a redirect, so that is also not possible. Please stop quoting those as if they are the only way to handle information. With the amount of articles that are deleted all of the time, constantly quoting them is rather silly. TTN (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you do not think there is anything to merge does not make it so. That is why we have discussions so those who created and worked on the article can opine.  After someone undid your redirect, did you try discussing with him on his talk page first to see why he undid it and to attempt to persuade him of your opinion?  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Disruptive renomination contrary to deletion policy by an editor who already been sanctioned for disruptive nominations. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple nominations that spiral into confusion are often renominated separately afterward. This is not disruptive in the least. TTN (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The matter seems quite clear to me. If you are confused then it would be better to let it rest. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing that is clear is the obvious gathering of the league of inclusionists. If only something like the "Article Deletion Squadron" would actually work out. The other AfD was mainly focused on the other article, and then the closer just took the easy way out instead of even marking this one to be merged or deleted. TTN (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You must be quite familiar with the correct process. This isn't it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can point some out to me, but I have never seen a case where attempting to get an article merged, redirected, or deleted through DRV actually stay open for more than ten minutes. If such a thing actually worked, I would have brought most of the my failed AfDs there already. TTN (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because AFD and DRV, as their names indicate, are processes for deletion . Any other content editing, such as merger, is dealt with elsewhere or by local consensus.  If you find that there is no consensus for the edits you wish to make then you should move on. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Both articles in the previous nomination were discussed thoroughly and worked on. There were only two, not a dozen, so its not like people didn't have time to consider both of them.   D r e a m Focus  17:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close, as I TRIED to do earlier. Opening a new afd the DAY AFTER a previous one closed is a pure case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Re-nominated a day after the previous AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2009 (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.