Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justice Lords


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Justice Lords

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Justice League (TV series) through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep They appear to be signicant characters that have been developed into a storyline. They've been made into toys. I think it's probably best to include them in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The characters have been made into toys and contrary to the other nominations of today, this article has sources. If need be it can be stubbified to delete unsourced material, that would still leave a notable or mergeable lead. The title would be a useful redirect. - Mgm|(talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of thousands of characters have toys made after them, and I'm sure that more minor characters from this series also have them. How do these toys establish notability any more than any other toy of a non-notable character? The article doesn't have sources (which were added after the nomination, just to clarify); it has two links, one confirming the existence of toys, and and another providing an in-universe description, which is basically an external links section. If real critical reception is provided, that is one thing, but to base an entire article on the existence of a few toys is just pointless. TTN (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would being added after a nomination invalidate sources? Artw (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * TTN is saying that since the links were added afterwards, TTN cannot be held responsible for not noticing them. Jay32183 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If there are references to the toys to show they;re notable, so are the characters. It seems perfectly reasonable to be t have as many articles on notable toys, or notable characters, as we need.DGG (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no significant coverage. Verifiable existence and notability are not the same thing. Jay32183 (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - in addition to the story they appeared in they form a part of the Cadmus Project storyline. Artw (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria? Jay32183 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (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.