Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraken (Marvel Comics)


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Kraken (Marvel Comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Strong Delete: Totally unnecessary. The majority of the article concerns itself with minor background creatures (with no real difference between them) that only exist to provide a few panels worth of action. Definitely fails WP:V. Also has WP:OR (inference on a background creature) and WP:NOT also applies. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The first Kraken (proof?) was a gigantic octopus? much in the same vein as the Kraken from Norwegian folklore (source for claim?). The creature first appeared in 1966 in The Avengers vol. 1 #27. It would return in Tales to Astonish #93 and in Sub-Mariner #27 (says who? All I see are differently draw background creatures used to advance the plot a few panels. No one says "hey, this is the creature fought back in ...."'). There's no notability here. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I really think an administrator should be brought in to settle this because I can't keep repeating myself over and over again. How many more times do I have to write that my liking an article has nothing to do with my main argument(s) to keep it. And how a "list of" style-article (which the Wikipedia guideline states can be used for minor characters in fiction) is not a free pass. Yet that's seems to be your only rebuttals against me. In closing I think the article should stay because
 * Keep. 1) Not indiscriminate. It links a bunch of comic book characters together to provide encyclopedic coverage that would not otherwise be possible.  2) Not unverified.  Primary sources meet V for their own existence. The best evidence that a Kraken appeared in a comic book is... drum roll... that comic book.  Alternatives to retention would be to editorially merge this into a "Krakens in fiction" article--which could include e.g. the Pirates of the Caribbean monster. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens and the arguments against the previous deletion proposal Talk:Kraken (Marvel Comics). Primary sources are always provided and secondary sources are provided for most of the aquatic monsters. Kraken has many representations in popular culture and I do not think that they could all be included in the article Kraken in popular culture. --Crazy runner (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep No reason why articles should not be created about comic book creatures. Passes WP:V. "Totally unnecessary" sounds like WP:USELESS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can agree with Jclemens in that any significant appearances by a named entity could be moved to the main article, but surely not random appearances by creatures for a few panels (hey, a few appearances in Dr. Seuss books aren't here either!) How is that significant? Do we have articles such as this for every form of sea life? Or every object on the planet? Thoughts? Thebladesofchaos (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Further to this, here's an example from the article:
 * Keep. In answer to the above query, the first character to ever appear in any Marvel comic to be referred to as a "Kraken" was that giant octopus in issue #27 of The Avengers. No other giant octopi or character in general had been referred to as such prior to that issue. There is also linkage between the issues in regards to the character. In the recent series of Index's that Marvel published called Avengers Thor & Captain America: Official Index to the Marvel Universe, its stated (in a writeup for that particular issue of The Avengers) that that character next appeared in TTA #93. Then, in issue #27 of The Sub-Mariner, when Namor leads the villain Commander Kraken to the bottom of the ocean to be defeated by the "real" Kraken near the end of the story, he mentions how he encountered the creature before and an asterisk at the bottom of the panel says "See Tales to Astonish #93". So there is continuity.Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in this comment which would explain why the article should be kept. Remember, AfDs are not votes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well for one thing the article was up for deletion before and it never passed. For another here we are again and the majority still want to keep it. How often has one or two individuals who disliked an article put it up for deletion only the have the general consensus be to keep it, on more than one occasion? Just because one or two individuals don't like a certain article doesn't mean it should be deleted. One or two individuals shouldn't rule their opinion over a discussion over wether an article has a right to exist or not because then what would be the point of even having a discussion in the first place? Alot of what is suggested in the guideline is interprative as well rather then hard facts or strict guidelines that must be followed. It seems to me that a general consensus is what should prevail here. The person I responded to in my earlier post gave a reason why it should be deleted and I countered his points when I proved that the character he was referring to has continuity within his various appearances. Furthermore I don't think the argument from the 2 people that want this article ousted is strong enough to delete an article of this size (this article is hardly a stub). It seems that the main argument against the article is the irrelevance of the characters. While they are not as major of a character as let's say a Spider-Man, or a Dr.Doom, I believe these characters have some relevance since they have appeared within the Marvel universe for decades. Have been major villains or plot points within various stories through those decades (i.e a major obstacle for the hero to overcome in regards to completing a quest within a story [such as the Kraken that Hercules and Wolverine encountered in their mini-series, or as in the first Kraken who actually assisted the hero in defeating a villain]). They have had various reappearances rather than a one shot or a handful of panel appearances in most cases (the same can not be said for other characters that have articles based on them on the Wiki that haven't appeared for as long or as many times as the various Krakens have.), Have made appearances outside of the medium of comics (such as video games). Then there is the fact the article is full of good information. Is informative and well structured. Has numerous cites (more so then a lot of allowable articles based on lets say obscure movies or novels that pepper the Wiki). Is well illustrated with pictures and overall features characters that have appeared in the continuity of the Marvel Universe for almost 50 years. From 1963 (the first) to as recent as this year (2011). The guideline notes that articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'," which gives me the impression that articles on fictional characters are allowable and that there is even a manner of dealing with them such as combing them into a list as is the case on this Kraken page.Giantdevilfish (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're seriously mistaken. AfDs are not votes, thus it doesn't matter how many people want to keep/delete an article, the conclusion is based on the strength of arguments. That the article wasn't deleted before is no proof that it deserves to be on WP. You say "Just because one or two individuals don't like a certain article doesn't mean it should be deleted"...I agree, this is not a question of liking or disliking an article, and that's why the article won't be kept just because you and others "like" it enough. The guidelines are not interpretative at all, on the contrary they are very clear. You talk about a "general consensus", well then the guidelines are a result of the consensus, and that's why they will be enforced, no matter how many people "like" a topic. You responded to one of Thebladesofchaos's comments, but you still haven't provided any reason why the topic should be kept. Thebladesofchaos talked about "notability", and notability is assessed through reliable and independent sources, it doesn't have anything to do with whether a character "has continuity within his various appearances" or not. And yes, our arguments are strong enough, we've said the topic fails the general notability guideline, which defines the threshold for inclusion. I can't see what would be stronger than than, and certainly not the fact that you "like" the topic. It doesn't matter whether we're only two against this article, if you can't prove the topic deserves to be on WP according to the criteria decided by WP (and not your own). The relevance of a character is not defined by its appearance in a number of primary sources, but by the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "the article is full of good information" ? What is good according to you isn't necessarily what is good according to WP. Same for "is informative and well structured", good for you if you like it (no judgment here), but it doesn't match what WP wants for articles about fiction. "Has numerous cites", again it doesn't matter how many comics are cited, WP asks for secondary sources. "more so then a lot of allowable articles", this is not a good argument, because it is not because something exist on WP that it has necessarily been acknowledged as "good". Please do things one step at a time, we'll worry about other articles later. "Is well illustrated with pictures and overall features characters", again, these considerations deliberatly avoid the issue of notability, we're not trying to assess the level of development of this article, but whether the topic deserves to be treated on WP or not. "that there is even a manner of dealing with them such as combing them into a list as is the case on this Kraken page", lists do not get a "free pass", they still have to be notable enough and not an indiscriminate collection of information.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Its hard to have a messageboard style discussion on the Wiki so I'll put your quotes in quotes and my response will follow non-italicized. I think you're seriously mistaken. AfDs are not votes, thus it doesn't matter how many people want to keep/delete an article, the conclusion is based on the strength of arguments. Then who decides which arguments are stronger? I personally think the strengths of the arguments to support the article outweigh the arguments to delete it. The guidelines are not interpretative at all, on the contrary they are very clear. But the guidelines state that articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...',". If that's the case it seems to gel with how this particular article is written where these minor characters appear in an article in a "list of" style prevalent in how this particular article is written as a whole. It seems to me to be following this particular guideline. but you still haven't provided any reason why the topic should be kept. Eh? I gave numerous reasons in my earlier post. Appearing in the Marvel universe for almost 50 years. Being featured in story arcs as both villains and allies to major heroes. Appearing in other media via a video game etc. etc.. has continuity within his various appearances or not. I was just responding to his post where he mentioned along the lines of "No one says hey, this is the creature fought back in ....)". And I stated that wasn't the case using the Namor quote in that old issue of the Sub-Mariner as an example that indeed someone said that, As well as the listing in Marvel's official index series, that shows that this particular character had continuity as opposed to his argument that they were differently drawn background characters to further a plot point. I simply stated that this was indeed the same character (via the evidence i supplied) and that yes he had been referenced as being a character that was encountered in the past. And yes, our arguments are strong enough, we've said the topic fails the general notability guideline, which defines the threshold for inclusion. I can't see what would be stronger than than, and certainly not the fact that you "like" the topic. Come on now. This goes beyond me liking the topic. I gave numerous reasons why I think the article should stay (in my previous post and then listed again at the beginning of this post) and this goes beyond my various dislikes or likes. I think my argument about the characters longevity, appearance outside of the comic medium and how the quote from the guideline I listed above which seems to make it okay to base articles on more minor characters as long as its done a certain way are very strong arguments on my side of the fence. Its irrelevant wether I like the character or article or not. but whether the topic deserves to be treated on WP or not. "that there is even a manner of dealing with them such as combing them into a list as is the case on this Kraken page", lists do not get a "free pass", they still have to be notable enough and not an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not saying it should get a free pass. What I am saying is that the Notability guideline gives you something to work with here rather than completely closing a door on this particular subject saying "sorry its not notable enough it has to be deleted". That guideline notes that "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a 'list of minor characters in ...'," That is something that can be worked with and applied to in regards to this particular article. That note from the guideline gives me the impression that articles on minor fictional characters are allowable and that there is even a proposed manner of dealing with said minor characters in a particular article rather than simply saying that they cannot have articles based on them and should not be included in any article whatsoever.Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that you like an article is not a strong argument (and is not an argument at all) in favor of its conservation. And no, the threshold for inclusion for a fictional character is not whether it appeared in a universe or in other media. The only criterion is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", period. Any other consideration is completely trivial. You keep ignoring the guidelines, but they exist whether you like it or not, and I can't see where this will lead you. You keep talking about lists, and I already pointed out to you that lists don't have a "free pass" and still have to be notable (through the existence of secondary sources).Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that you like an article is not a strong argument (and is not an argument at all) in favor of its conservation. !!!!!Wait a minute now. Since when did I say the fact I like an article is my argument? I offered numerous arguments why I think the article should stay (arguments that you conveniently overlook). I think its a nice article (could use work) but I never said that was my argument and that is why the article should stay. Yet according to you that's my major ammo in this discussion. I've specifically stated that my opinion is irrelevant in my earlier post and yet you keep bringing up the fact that I like this article as being my main argument. Really now???? I mentioned more then once that wasn't my argument yet you persist in using that as your main rebuttal. You keep ignoring the guidelines, but they exist whether you like it or not, and I can't see where this will lead you. You keep talking about lists, and I already pointed out to you that lists don't have a "free pass" and still have to be notable. Wait a minute. I never said a list is a free pass (again you are making me repeat myself. Look I'm not a parrot and can't keep saying the same things over and over again, and for anybody who's reading this you can see that I addressed all these points in my earlier writings about how lists aren't free passes and how me liking an article is irrelevant.). I merely said it gives us something to work with here. It would be a shame to delete an article this big when there is a way that they can exist per the guidelines. I think you are the one ignoring the guidelines because you keep ignoring the fact that the guideline makes it clear that a minor character in fiction can have an article (footnote seven) if done so in a "list of" format. This is what my main argument is.
 * (1) The characters featured in the article have been around in the Marvel universe for almost half a century. (1963-present)
 * (2) One of these characters have appeared in a medium outside comics (video games) the same can't be said for most other comic book characters.
 * (3) The Notability guidelines state that minor characters can have an article if done in a "list of" format which is how this particular article is written. This is following a statement in the Wikipedia's own guideline and therefore doesn't automatically close the door on what is a non-notable major character in fiction. Going by what the guideline itself is stating it seems to me that an article like this one can indeed exist. Sure it needs work, but I think tagging on what it specifically needs to make it a better article is more resonable then doing something harsh as in deleting it outright. Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There's really no point in discussing this further:
 * -> not a criterion for inclusion
 * -> not a creterion for inclusion
 * Contrary to what you're saying, no, the Notability guideline does not state that a minor character in fiction can have an article merely if done in a "list of" format. Here's what the guideline says: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". And here is what the Manual of Style for Lists says: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem. The "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana" will be of little interest to anyone (except the person making the list)." You leave out parts of the guidelines that go against your interpretation, and you cling to footnote 7 while refusing to make it work with what is already established for lists. Particularly, WP:FAILN mentions "merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context", where did you read that it allowed for the article itself merely to be reformatted into a list, as you suggest ? If the article itself is not notable, then it has either to be integrated in a broader article, or deleted, but whether in "normal" or in "list" format, every article has to be notable, lists are no exceptions. So envisioning this article as "List of Krakens (Marvel Comics)" will not magically solve the notability issue at all, because, remember, "Lists that are too specific are also a problem". You'd still have to find secondary sources proving that this would be a list worth having here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's what the guideline says: "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines". It seems to me the article has numerous independent reliable sources. We have various comic book related sources (that are independent of the actual publishing company), a video gaming website as well as a pop culture themed website (which is what IGN has basically evolved into). How does that not apply here?. Particularly, WP:FAILN mentions "merging the article's verifiable content into a broader article providing context", where did you read that it allowed for the article itself merely to be reformatted into a list, as you suggest ? The way the article was originally written only featured one Kraken. Rather than have separate articles based on the various other Kraken's (most notably the Hydra villain who has been a major villain in the Secret Warriors book for a few years) all these other characters were then merged into one broader article encompassing the villains/monsters that have appeared within the Marvel Universe from the beginning using the Kraken name. It seems to gel with what is stated on the guideline. You'd still have to find secondary sources proving that this would be a list worth having here And the video gaming and comic book related sources are not secondary?Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have already explained elsewhere, no, there is not enough coverage by independent reliable sources to make even a list. As I have said, barely being mentioned once in dubious and clearly unconsequential sources such as fansites, game walkthroughs (who wrote them ?) or ultra-short reviews as part of a plot summary will never count as being notable. So no, there's still nothing which would justify the existence of a "list of Krakens in Marvel Comics", remember, "Lists that are too specific are also a problem". If you absolutely want to make something of the article, at worst it could be redirected to Kraken, with mentions about comics inside a "in popular culture" section, but be sure that Krakens in Marvel Comics will never have their own article or list.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We still have cites from various sources not affiliated with Marvel. The guideline asks for secondary sources. We have various secondary sources. I think your opinion of the secondary sources and the amount of coverage they portray is opinion. (You went from saying the MUAPP site is a personal site to now saying it can hardly be considered independant which is what exactly it is. Its a non-profit independant site that, like the Wikipedia, relies on contributors). Its not affliated with Marvel Comics. Having secondary sources listed under the citations is basically what the guideline is asking for. If the article needs more secondary sources than it should be tagged as such. Like "This article needs more secondary sources" or "this article needs more citations".etc. I think outright deleting an article is too harsh considering it has what the guideline is asking.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see you're completely avoiding any question about the value of the sources you're advancing. You cannot dismiss any concern about this just by saying "this is opinion". No, this is fact. All the sources are either dubious or incredibly insignificant, or both.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: This article reads like a plot-only description of a fictional character, thus it fails the general notability guideline in that it lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", indeed the only sources are Marvel comics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Kraken was writing and drawing the stories? Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Independent of the subject" means sources not written by the subject itself.
 * The subject is the Kraken
 * The sources are comic books
 * Therefore, the Kraken wrote the comic books. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of this can be solved with a simple thing: actually reading the guideline, which says "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator ", which of course means that the guideline was also intended for "subjects" that are non-human and have been "created" (such as fictional characters) and defines, in these cases, that sources should not be close to the author/publisher/distributor/etc "affiliated" with this character. Of course the Kraken did not wrote any comic books and I don't think anyone with enough common sense would fall for that. Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe, CBR, IGN, Digital Trends and PSXExtreme are independent of Marvel Comics. --85.68.155.72 (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the "Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe" appears to be a personal website thus not an appropriate source, and anyway, having only a short entry on this site doesn't define as "significant coverage" meaning "more than a trivial mention", same for CBR, IGN Digital Trends and PSXExtreme, which don't even mention the word "Kraken" twice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * False statement !!! There are three times the word Kraken in 28. There are seven times the word Kraken in 37. How many do you count for an image ? Did you count monster, creature, ... ? 85.68.155.72 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if a word is written twice instead of twice, it won't change the fact that these are all trivial mentions and not the "significant coverage, in details", that WP:GNG asks for.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Marvel Universe Appendix should be elevated beyond a simple personal style fan site because Marvel Comics themselves have used them for information and credited them in their various offcial index publications.Giantdevilfish (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't change the fact that there's no "significant coverage" in it either. And since the author, Jeff Christiansen, is a writer for official Marvel "Handbooks", it can't even count as independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Two of the Kraken's get coverage. (one is pretty indepth and that's more than can be said of alot of the other minor characters within the Marvel Universe) plus Jeff started this site before he began wrting (freelance) handbooks for Marvel. As well the site (which has numerous contributors that do not work for Marvel) is not affiliated with the publishing company. So yes it can still count as being independant. The same thing can be applied to the Marvel Chronology Project.Giantdevilfish (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * A short descriptive entry on a fansite is not significant coverage.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not currently persuaded by either set of arguments. However, if this article is kept, the WP:OR section headings with Roman numerals ("Kraken I", "Kraken II", etc.) need to be changed to something that is backed up by the sources.  Also, please note there is a similar Kraken (DC Comics) page which probably should be either deleted or kept depending on what is done here.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 02:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the aquatic monsters section can be changed into paragraphs.85.68.155.155 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment : I'm still not seeing it. Multiple appearaces by a very minor plot device and in most instances, not even the same creature. Again, do other forms of marine life receive this treatment? There are too many bends in the logic here. A sourced paragraph at the main Popular Culture page would do. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And about the characters named Kraken ? It is not popular culture. Popular culture shoud have a paragraph about Kraken in comics then in each Kraken (... Comics) it is possible to developed a little bit. If the problem comes from the list, the aquatic monsters section can be changed into paragraphs. And do not forget, characters named Kraken exist and their are not aquatic monsters.85.68.155.155 (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a form of marine life but legendary sea monsters of gargantuan size. You want other that receive this treatment see Thor (comics), Frankenstein (DC Comics), Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics), Wendigo (comics), Sasquatch (comics), Demons in the Marvel Universe, Angels (Marvel Comics)85.68.155.155 (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Bad examples. Mythology aside, Thor is a legitimate character. Frankenstein's Monster a character from a well-known work. The Wendigo and Sasquatch strong legends. Demons and angels should go without saying. I'm now convinced the small relevant portion of this article can be integrated into the Popular culture section. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thebladeofchaos really wants the chaos. The Kraken is also a strong legend. Many characters were Wendigo, many characters were Kraken. End of the story. 85.68.155.72 (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kraken in popular culture is a notable subject, the article cannot contain all the Kraken appearances. A section concerning comics in Kraken in popular culture would be great, additionnal information in Kraken (... Comics) is helpful. Futhermore Kraken is also a name used by different characters. When you click on Kraken (... Comics), it is logic to have the aquatic monsters and the characters. It is useful because you can see different interpretations and representations of the legend of Kraken. 85.68.155.72 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The PC article can contain the relevant appearances. There are not many of those at the page under review. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Folken de Fanel. The article should be deleted as it exists now, the rationale being based upon the arguments presented regarding original research and synthesis. In short, this article is not presented as a unified concept. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2011 (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.