Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horizon Labs


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Horizon Labs

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fictional Marvel Universe that fails notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge Max Modell into the Horizon Labs article and give editors time to expand the article after the merge is complete. The Horizon Labs article has been around for less than a day; it was already up for deletion before I even knew it existed. Give editors time to expand it before it is deleted. Anyone who has read an issue of The Amazing Spider-Man in the past two years will tell you how important Horizon Labs has been to the storylines. Renominate for deletion in one month if the article has not sufficiently improved. Spidey 104  01:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In-universe importance is irrelevant. Do we have third-party sources commenting on its role in the stories?  Considering how stubby Spider-Man: Big Time is (it contains literally nothing apart from plot summary, bibliographic information and a table of ratings from various sources), it seems odd to split things out from it. Morwen (Talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Big Time was only the first appearance of Horizon Labs, but it isn't really split off from that article. The technology Spider-Man has created while working at Horizon Labs has been talked about in reviews of the comic books and has already been turned into toys. Adaptation into other media is real world notability. I could find more sources, but I won't waste my time if it's going to be deleted anyways. Give me the month I asked for and I will spend time finding more sources. A wait and see approach is a common result of deletion discussions, and I have already given a small source on little effort. Imagine what I could do with real effort in a month. :-) Spidey  104  03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 18:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)




 * Weak delete - suffers from some serious WP:IN-U problems. Yes, it has been mentioned in games, other comics, other stories, perhaps even on television shows and other things. But these really aren't third party sources or independent - they all contribute to the subject's in-universe notability (if you know what I mean). That's not the same as Wikipedia notability. As a company, it (obviously) massively fails WP:CORPDEPTH, even as a fictional company. When I saw this AFD, though, I instantly (don't ask me why) thought of Skynet - another fictional organisation. That article seems to suffer from the same problems. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a great argument for keeping this one, though. The subject is not particularly encyclopaedic and goes to the reason wiki software can be used for other things - like this; . The fact that the Marvel Wiki article is less substantive than the WP one is telling, I think. Stalwart 111  00:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theo polisme  02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)



I don't think the Marvel Wiki is exactly the best source. It has less contributors than the Comics WikiProject. Spidey 104  01:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete there's a real lack of context here from outside the universe, which can only really come from independent sources. Something that could WP:verify notability that isn't just some editor's opinion or a reference to the show or its creators. I would also support a merge as a compromise, but there's already plenty of work to be done on the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unremarkable topic written completely in a WP:IN-U style. Fails WP:V and WP:N RadioFan (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with the opposers. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:06, 26 November 2012 (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.