Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning Lord


 * 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 redirect to Legion of Super-Villains. There is one valid "keep" opinion, then we have a bunch of personal attacks which we must disregard, and "he is recurring enemy of the Legion of Super Heroes", which is irrelevant to our inclusion criteria. Everybody else is against keeping this.  Sandstein  16:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lightning Lord

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. While this article does cite some non-primary sources, it seems they do not go beyond plot and list of appearances. I am not sure where this could be redirected too, but feel free to offer any suggestions (Legion of Super-Villains, perhaps? But group articles like this are notoriously bad at being notable too... maybe some List of Superman supporting characters or such?). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 10 September 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  07:52, 10 September 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  07:52, 10 September 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  07:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The article already contains some reasonable sources and there are plenty more out there including The Encyclopedia of Super Villains; DC Comics Super-Villains; DC Comics Encyclopedia; The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood; &c. Yet another case of WP:IGNORINGATD, WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP.  Our policy WP:ATD states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page" so improvement is what we should do, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And how do you propose to expand this with the sources you found? Our fancrufty plot coverage is already more extensive than what I see in those books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:13, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Legion of Super-Villains, no indication the sources in the article provide significant coverage, they are used to back up in-universe information and therefore there is no indication they contribute to GNG. Sources provided above are just handwaves, no indication of SIGCOV. Article also currently fails WP:NFICTION. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Another cookie-cutter nomination from am editor who refuses to consider the extensive array of relevant print sources. It's a measure of the nom's carelessness that he suggests the wrong comics franchise as a potential redirect target. The nominator also persistently misunderstands NFICTION, which quite clearly includes "development" and "design" as appropriate topics of discussion; much of the article relates to the development of the fictional character and its incorporation into the overall design of DC's fictional universe. Underneath all the verbiage, this is little better than an IDONTLIKEIT nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - If sources exist, they should be presented and be given a brief summary of the context they provide. That has not been done. The sources in the article do not provide anything. This fails WP:GNG and does not fulfill the standards of WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Legion of Super-Villains - Only one of the sources currently in the article is actually valid as a secondary source - the others are all DC publications. The sources listed by Andrew here have almost no coverage of the character (the "Encyclopedia of Super Villains", for example, only has his name in the list of Legion of Super-Villain members with no actual coverage of the character, and "DC Comics Super-Villains only has a single sentence, which is also just in the context of the list of members of that team), and what very little there is in those books is pure plot summary.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. He is recurring enemy of the Legion of Super Heroes. Plus, and  are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Legion of Super-Villains - as above, there should be sources to establish notability. Every DC character doesn't need an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Let this page die, seriously. He is just a recurring enemy of the Legion of Super Heroes. Plus, @Andrew Davidson and @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are wrong about their claims in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Legion of Super-Villains as non-notable comic-cruft that fails GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Devonian Wombat. There just isn't significant coverage about this subject, and the article cannot meet the WP:GNG. A redirect is a good compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Close as trainwreck - This nomination is a mess, split between the same people known to vote "Keep" on everything, versus the same people known to vote "Delete/Redirect" as a reflex.
 * has been posting the same thing on many of ' nominations, even when Piotrus says that he performed a WP:BEFORE test or gives a rationale consistent with WP:DELREASON. This has been mentioned both at ANI and on Andrew's talk page.
 * is mostly saying what Andrew said.
 * 's vote fails WP:LIKE and WP:PERNOM.
 * 's vote fails WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:MAJORITY, and WP:IDONTKNOWIT.
 * At least two or three others here have been voting "Delete" or "Redirect" on nearly everything.
 * With a few exceptions, the bulk of this thread feels like users with preconceived biases going neck-and-neck. It's up to the instincts of the closing administrator, but my advice would be a WP:RFC or a second nomination.  Dark knight  2149  04:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If we discount the votes by editors you mention, and I concur with you they are not particularly "well argued", then I think we don't have a single keep vote remaining, so I'd think there is a clear consesus for a redirect, which I think is a fine compromise. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you are including me in that "votes delete on nearly everything", but that is patently false. I've voted keep on a number of articles where the nominator has made an error. I try to be as impartial as possible in my voting, and any insinuation of voting delete "on reflex" may instead be down to a lack of understanding of notability criteria.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The "few exceptions" I named above are all redirect votes, but the responses here for the most part have been pretty messy. If a second nomination isn't desirable, I think something like a request for further comments or getting this nomination more exposure would be a good alternative, with the closer taking into account votes that aren't substantive. All the WP:LIKE, WP:PERNOM ("Per what the other guy said, the end"), and WP:IDONTKNOWIT is giving me a headache.  Dark knight  2149  05:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the standard procedure in to simply relist it, if the reviewing admin determines that consensus need further debate (after hopefully discarding the poorly arguments per WP:NOTAVOTE). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

*Delete - This page needs to die. These wrongheaded claims and attacks by comic fans need to stop, seriously. - 206.116.178.216 (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC) This user has been blocked after making only this post and nothing else. 
 * ^ Case of point.  Dark knight  2149  11:05, 16 September 2020 (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.