Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Guard (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 no consensus. – bradv  🍁  07:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Imperial Guard (comics)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This has been deleted few months ago but now restored. It seems slightly improved, but IMHO, not enough to meet WP:NFICTION/GNG. We now have a section on 'concept and creation' sourced primarily to a WP:INTERVIEW (and a low-reliablility two paragraph website here) and reception based on a single sentence (passing mention as defined by GNG). Time to discuss it here again, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:51, 28 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  01:51, 28 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  01:51, 28 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  01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 2601:243:1C80:6740:DD50:EB04:4574:A2C0 (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep based on significant improvements to the article to meet the WP:GNG, or failing that merge to Shi'ar per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is based on WP:NFICTION but that is an essay and "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". What's wanted is policy and most applicable is WP:ATD which states "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  The page is already quite good but improvement is still feasible as I have just done so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Going through and attaching junk CBR links to plot material does not help satisfy GNG. This still lacks actual significant coverage. TTN (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - As was the case less than a year ago when it was deleted at AFD before, there just are not enough non-plot summaries in reliable, third party sources to pass the WP:GNG. I'd almost venture to say this current iteration of the article is even worse than the one that was deleted already, as it appears to be even more filled with in-universe plot summaries than the old article.  As mentioned multiple times in the previous AFD, this group is already covered in the main Shi'ar article, which is the broader topic, and is not independently notable enough that it would require a split from that.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's obvious my stance is still Keep. If not then merge/redirect is still a better option. Too much good info to just wipe it out completely. Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep — If nothing else, the article establishes that the original members of the team were a pastiche of the principal members of DC's Legion of Super-Heroes. The fact that the Imperial Guard has been featured in so many stories over the years — including their own limited series — is a testament to their notability. (As is the fact that so many CBR and Looper articles have been written about them. It is my understanding that both CBR and Looper are considered verifiable third-party sources...) In addition, they were key participants in The Dark Phoenix Saga storyline, which in many people's eyes establish the notability of the X-Men franchise. Finally, deleting and redirecting the article to Shi'ar would not solve the issue that the vast majority of the members of the Imperial Guard (Superguardians) are not Shi'ar. Maybe the best solution would be to drastically cut the offending in-universe plot summaries? -- stoshmaster (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some examples of sources used in the article include:
 * Article in which the group is mentioned literally a single time with no context #1
 * Article in which the group is mentioned in relation only to the plot with no significant commentary
 * Article in which the group is mentioned literally a single time with no context #2
 * Article in which the group is mentioned literally a single time with no context #3
 * Article in which the group is mentioned literally a single time with no context #4
 * Article in which the group is mentioned literally a single time with no context #5
 * Junk listicle deemed unreliable
 * Not even taking into account that CBR is a trash website in its current form, these are not significant coverage as desired by WP:GNG. They don't even belong in the article. TTN (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still no reason to wipe an article info and revisions out completely. If you feel the article is deleted. Then you did your part and vote delete. I don’t think we need to see critical evaluations of sources that may not be all sources of the group.That just reeks of desperation of Wikipedia cleanup.   Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If 99% of the sources are primary or trash, that means the article is not suitable for Wikipedia. It seems there was a limited comic book series on the topic, so the best bet would be to see if there are any sources to establish notability for that. An article on the comic book could allow some retention of fictional details for context, though definitely not the full scope of this current article. TTN (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What does Wikipedia say about "trash" sources? Or is the opinion that CBR is trash your own? Why do you preach of what Wikipedia should be is your own? That seems a bit too passionate. I am aware of guidelines and essays you normally point to half the time. Though it seems that you probably miscontrue them sometimes for your own wants.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  17:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources are junk if A. They fail to provide significant coverage on the topic. B. If they are of an unreliable nature from an otherwise reliable site (opinion pieces, listicles, etc) C. They are from an unreliable source. All these sources fail A and/or B. CBR's listcles are outright unreliable, and, being a clickbait factory after their 2016 rebrand, their status is certainly suspect. TTN (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia didn’t say that. And it's just your opinion. Then agree to disagree. You are not the voice of Wikipedia. I agree they say useless in-universe info now that can’t benefit here as much. Them and Screen Rant. Pop-culture sites have died a long time ago so much so that it’s hard to prove that many major superheroes and superhero teams (such as Deadman and Animal Man) is notable until the character gets a live-action adaptation. Then the really "reliable sources" act like they weren’t notable before like bogus lines like "Who is Adam Strange from Krypton, Mister Mind from Shazam etc.) Though common sense prevails that they are indeed a major character from a major franchise anyway. I will check if a preferred sources like Newsarama (which used to exist) and IGN has something. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SIGCOV and listicles being unreliable are not my singular opinion. CBR being a trashheap is my analysis of the site, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard. Regardless of their status as reliable or not, it is absolutely certain that almost nothing in this article provides significant coverage. TTN (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s a now in-universal ok (while used to be good) pop-culture news source. But it still checks out! ( Ahem! Excuse my Return of the Jedi reference ). At least in my subjective mind. Jhenderson  7 7 7  19:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Listicles are the only thing fictional characters have. Practically no video game character article would be considered notable without creator interviews for creation and conception and lists of greatest X characters (with explanation) unless they had their own adaptation like I already explained. Sorry to disappoint but these people in that discussion is short and too few of a convo to considered official. Keep in mind all of the "reliable sources" are taking about COVID-19 and political stuff at the moment. Recent sources are not a way to determine notability now. Also pop-culture (the other thing you would mention) is not warranted. Not everyone is a Spider-Man or Darth Vader now. The closest example of that currently is The Child thanks to internet memes. Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The threshold for sources doesn't just magically lower because a topic gets less mainstream coverage. That simply means the topic is not notable. Simply being a specialty site doesn't make a source bad. It's when it becomes a hell of clickbait with zero editorial standards. And even if the source is otherwise notable, it doesn't mean anything if the article does not provide significant coverage. Listicles are peak clickbait no matter the website, so they're never going to be useful to anything. Feel free to do another Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion for alternate opinions, but I feel it'll be nearly unanimous every time. TTN (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can promise you they surely can diminish or undiminish...because of comic book continuity....there can always be an early Blue Beetle and Hop Harrigan (who was notable in the 1940's newspapers) but not now and also be another Guardians of the Galaxy (which was not notable before MCU) which is notable now. There is a reason why we have our own guidelines on comic book characters and we are not always relying on an essay on fiction or a guideline on real life.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Let this page stay. As mentioned above, the recreated article has been an improvement of the one that was previously deleted. I also support the suggestions of, , , and . --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - doesn't come close to passing WP:GNG. Onel 5969  TT me 23:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IGNORINGATD. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per TTN, fails WP:GNG, sources are WP:TRIVIAL mentions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can’t tell you how many times I am reading Wikipedia (or even Wikimedia) guidelines and they say they should avoid deleting when you can. Instead the same editors keep voting delete because they clearly want to see it deleted. They say it’s GNG. Though it seems more like a bandwagon excuse to team up. Though not all these editors I assume are like that. I feel Rorschama wouldn’t be that way and would vote sometimes the alternative. Though it’s obvious this is a bandwagon of the same kind of vote with no plan to change their vote. I get that the keep editors that are voting is doing arguments to avoid. Especially one editor off the top of my head needs a better argument. Though like I said Wikimedia is not about material deletion cleanup. It clearly is saying you do likewise. I feel that is what Jimmy Wales wants it that way too. Also "Per X" WAS an argument to avoid (until removed) and so is still is "per  guideline / essay".   Jhenderson  7 7 7  00:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am anything but a "bandwagon" voter so please stop casting aspersions without evidence and WP:BLUDGEONing. I've voted keep on articles like Danger Room or Hill Valley (Back to the Future) because I legitimately believed they were notable and said articles were kept. There is such a thing as an eminently notable article on fictional subjects, many of which I've written myself. And then there is just plain cruft that fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and of which all sources are just WP:ALLPLOT summaries.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You vote Keep sometimes. No hard feelings then. You used common sense on those articles. (Who in the world would AFD the danger room anyway?)And I think on Themiscyria you voted keep too. It’s just that you and TTN sure do magically agree a lot. It happens though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, discouraging any type of voting in AfD by constantly arguing against it, is actually detrimental to Wikipedia. It lowers the odds people will participate in AfD and leads to a lower article standard in Wikipedia overall. I'd try to refrain from being argumentative unless there is something well and truly wrong with their logic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My two opinions on that. Tell that to TTN who replies to keep voters constantly or finally realize that I (and TTN) am not really arguing but debating civilly. Jhenderson  7 7 7  02:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It goes both ways, so I don't necessarily agree with TTN's behavior either. If a keep vote is very clearly WP:JUSTAVOTE then I leave it for the admin to throw out rather than getting into an argument. It's not like the !voter will see much success in any AfD if they continue to vote like that. I usually only reply when there is something that wouldn't be obvious unless refuted.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY; the article is better than it was in the previous nomination. Complaining that a perfectly adequate published RS is an "interview" shows that the nom/delete voters really just want another notch on their belt. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article for Marvel Comics' Imperial Guard appears to be covered under WP:NList, and the standards of GNG I believe do not apply differently to list articles of fictional characters. Listicles from reliable sources that discuss the Imperial Guard collectively are appropriate and adequate sources to support such an article, as the entirety of such a list does not need to be documented in sources for notability. Aside from one editor who almost always favor deletionism for all articles on fictional works and topics for more then a decade, there is no established consensus within the wider Wikipedia community that Comic Book Resources is not a reliable source, and at the time of writing it is still listed as a reliable source under WP:CMC/REF. Furthermore, WP:NCOMIC proposes that a character or team is presumed to warrant a solo article if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
 * Have had, at any point in time, a solo comic book series longer than a one-shot.
 * Featured prominently in an animated/live-action series or movie of a comic book property (e.g. not a cameo).
 * Covered in a more than trivial manner in a published secondary source (WP:GNG).
 * The Imperial Guard characters have starred in their own limited series, a sub-series of the War of Kings crossover event as well as the Realm of Kings comic event series eponymously titled Imperial Guard, for your reference. Reviews for their 1997 limited series as well as Realm of Kings: Imperial Guard most certainly exist and could be cited to demonstrate the reliability of the topic characters as a collective. Merging or redirecting it to Shi'ar is not appropriate in my view, because that article is also reliant on primary sources, which editors who draw a hardline on GNG standards will have a problem with and will likely not survive an AfD if majority consensus is from deletionist-inclined editors. I also support Toughpigs' argument based on WP:HEY. Also Jhenderson777, from experience, your assertion that fictional characters only have listicles as sources aren't true, though list articles that discuss a group as a whole supports the existence of a list article on Wikipedia. Haleth (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that listicles aren’t the only thing that have reception. But they used to be a saving grace for them in the past. But there is nothing wrong with them helping when they have info reasoning based on their reasoning is all I am trying to say. I already get WhatCulture and WatchMojo aren’t considered reliable too so I know the negativity of them. Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an article that has a list in it. It does not follow LISTN. "List of Imperial Guard Members" would be a list. NCOMIC is MOS with a suggestion on when an article may be notable, but it does not determine notability. It's honestly really bad criteria. Listicles are not reliable, full stop. TTN (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's an essay that's not even part of the MOS, so it's even more useless of a suggestion. TTN (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure you are talking to me or Haleth. But I still stand my opinion that IGN and Empire having a top whatever is notable. When it’s a major source like that at least. Obviously CBR is not that example. I never went as far as saying it was. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You just pointed to a discussion page like it was an official guideline and you are complaining about an essay? Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is for the purpose of determining community consensus on the status of reliable/unreliable sources. TTN (talk) 14:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok three vague opinions. And no opinion that lists can provide useful commentary or be notable notable enough on its own. Although that isn’t the point. The point is that is an essay is just as reliable source for advice than what you pointed at. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which only received comments of opinions from exactly, two other users. The outcome of that discussion is an echo chamber that is about as useful as my little "consensus" with two other users in a discussion for a proposed merge for the Paper Mario character Vivian. It is WP:Localconsensus that is not supported by guidelines or policy, and it cannot supersede them either. There is currently no specific guideline or policy on notability for fictional characters or topics, only WP:GNG applies, full stop. I've seen you and a few other users quoting essays which propose a solution that aligns with your views during discussions, so it's only fair that I've quoted a longstanding essay which suggests a guideline on notability for comic book, and I don't expect you to agree. I suggest you or Piotr stop quoting that stalled RSN discussion in almost every single AfD debate as if it's policy or guideline that editors are compelled to follow. Your opinions are exactly that, your own. Otherwise, get a RfC organized on this issue, once and for all.
 * As for your assertion that it isn't a list article because it is not titled "List of Imperial Guard characters", that is just semantics. I've seen several other "Characters of XXX" which are classified as "list class" even though they don't start with "List of xxx characters". The current organization of the article's content is dominated by a listing of the organization's members, and is for all intents and purposes, a list. The article can be rewritten to comply with the MOS of a list article. That would be an appropriate measure as clean up, not deletion. Haleth (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion on a common noticeboard in which many users from various areas browse is not the same as consensus on a singular article talk page. I also referenced three other discussions in which something was deemed unreliable due to them being listicle factories. Even if that does not inherently blacklist sites as a whole, it is clearly a consensus that listicles as a whole are not reliable. That also doesn't really help the fact that none of the CBR articles cited talk about the topic anyway. I haven't personally quoted WP:FICT or essays myself in years from what I can recall, but that's ultimately just a summarization of WP:WAF, WP:NOTPLOT, and WP:GNG in how they relate to fiction. The comic one fails to account for WP:GNG, so it's absolutely useless. This is not "Characters of X" or rated as a List-class article by the project, so it is literally not a list article. Lists can have a bit of non-list context, but the bulk of this article clearly is clearly non-list prose. TTN (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It certainly has the same consensus as that of a singular article talk page since it lacks the explicit support of the broader community, when only two editors and no one else bothered to weight in, astounding when even you acknowledged that more readers are supposed to browse that noticeboard. At least Masem's opinion was helpful, where he specifically said that "Lists that simply give lists but do not give more than a brief description of why stuff is on the list" are the useless ones. Again, only a consensus established through RfC is worth deferring to, and consensus is mutable. So, your claim that there is tacit agreement is not supported by Wikipedia policy or guideline on level of consensus. The three discussions you linked were about the reliability of specific sources which have been brought up. Like any other article or editorial, there are good listicles, and bad ones. Even professional journalist sources which are widely considered reliable like The Guardian and IGN have published listicles, and there is a noticeable gap in quality if compared to the ones published by enthusiast websites like Whatculture or Watchmojo, so if either website publish a page length editorial or 10 minute analysis video for a change instead of their daily listicles, it still won't change the fact that their reporting content and editorial oversight has been vetted to be unreliable or low quality within the same discussions you referred to. CBR I personally consider to be situational post-2016, for obvious reasons, but I have yet to see any community-wide consensus deprecating the source or vetting it as unreliable. The comic one fails to account for GNG? Read it again, it's listed as one of three suggested criteria, and I copy pasted it word for word. Haleth (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect Despite all the people showing up and casting their votes, none have thus far managed to add any substantial real-world information to this WP:ALLPLOT article. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete - I am surprised... Deletion is not supposed a vote, and arguments are supposed to be more substantial, and more policy grounded that: "this is a bit better than before and the concept is important in the comic universe". The encyclopedia-worthy content here is no more than a few sentences, and references are relatively weak. I see that the only possibility would be to merge those few sentences somewhere, but I am not sure where... - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Article and references have been vastly improved from what it was. WP:HEY.  Meets WP:GNG.  WP:Not paper.  WP:Preserve.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 04:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article does not meet any notability guidelines. Sources in article and found in BEFORE are mentions, plot summaries, etc, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the topic directly and indepth. <span style="font-family:Courier New, Courier, monospace;"> // Timothy ::  talk  23:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. I read through the linked secondary sources and am not seeing which ones are meant to constitute significant coverage. I'm seeing no substance with which we can build a dedicated encyclopedia article. The article is longer than it was when it was deleted in January, yes, but is length is empty if it's built from every extant passing mention of the topic and bolstered by primary sources. For those who simply want to preserve the content, Shi'ar would make a good redirect target in which the little that is actually sourced can be appropriately covered, but as was said above, that article too lacks in-depth secondary source coverage. I'd be interested in other potential redirect targets but every other instance I've seen would bring no reader benefit—all brief mentions in a long list. (Maybe ?) Hence deletion, per the last AfD. (not watching, please )  czar  06:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all of the Imperial Guard members are Shi'ar. Some of them come from the other alien races that are in the Shi'ar Empire's jurisdiction. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SMB9 9thx   my edits!  09:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP — I've heavily edited the article to reduce the size of the in-universe plot summaries, and rebalanced citations by adding secondary sources and removing as many primary sources as I could. I still contend the article is notable because it establishes their relationship with the Legion of Super-Heroes, as well as showing their involvement with any number of other major Marvel storylines that are the subjects of multiple articles. Not to mention a redirect to Shi'ar would cause more problems, since the vast majority of the Imperial Guard are NOT in themselves members of the Shi'ar race. -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reducing extraneous content can happen at any time, but sourcing issues are forever. czar  17:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Lol he did some add new sources apparently. I think he should have noted it. Jhenderson  7 7 7  18:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Solid improvements made, and as I have argued in other Marvel comic AfDs - this is a small piece and part of a larger puzzle and should be considered not just on its own merit, which is enough in my mind, but as a part of a larger whole.--Concertmusic (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any improvements made. The entire article is still nothing but in-universe fanwiki-esque content even more than two weeks after the first keep !vote was cast in this discussion. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:43, 15 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.