Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Gods


 * 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 New Gods. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

List of New Gods

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is a series of unverifiable, unsourced or primary sourced plot details, violating both the WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Most of the notable characters in this universe already have articles, along with the main New Gods article. Going beyond that with a separate topic is untenable because there are not enough reliable independent sources to create an independent article of this scope. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with New Gods or Move to List of New Gods characters - I was tempted to vote "Keep" because of how ridiculously notable the New Gods (and their pantheon) are, even on the simplest of WP:BEFORE tests. But on second thought, there's no reason a less wordy version of this list can't be covered on the main page. However, if we move the page, it will need to be edited, expanded, and rewritten because of the poor writing.  Dark knight  2149  20:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete There is little to merge here. Only three names in the entire list are sourced, the rest do not even have primary sources. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - The New Gods are definitely notable, and as Darkknight2149 said, a quick search brings up plenty of sources. That said, the list needs to be massively cleaned up.  This should really be limited to those characters that either are blue linked to their own articles, or have at least one non-primary source supporting the information, which the vast majority of the characters here do not.  Additionally, all of the characters listed here who are not New Gods (the various human characters, the Old Gods, etc) should also be removed.  At that point, I feel that the remainder of this list would be short enough that it would make sense to Merge it to the main New Gods article as suggested. Rorshacma (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Dimadick. There is not much to merge. I really don't see almost any of these list members surviving an AfD themselves. Similar to the D&D monsters lists, we don't have to wait for the non-notable list entries to go before removing the non-notable list.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Either solution is fine, but it seems to make more sense just to start a new list of bluelinks than merge this mess of a list with its circular redirect and redirects to nowhere. TTN (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as these characters are already covered in their own article, and there is no additional content to make this independently notable as stated in the WP:GNG. I would accept some kind of section in the main article linking to the notable characters, for navigation purposes, but this is already covered in the template. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep or Move to List of New Gods characters per the suggestion of . Some of the New Gods characters currently redirect there and we have to have them redirect somewhere on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Excuse my frankness, but can anyone here cite an actual policy-based reason for outright deletion? As both myself and have pointed out, even the simplest of WP:BEFORE tests will bring up coverage pertaining to New Gods characters (which in itself is an influential comic book property). Aside from that, there is a "But the article is not well sourced" vote, a vote citing that vote, and a couple of others that seem tentatively in favour of a redirect/merge, but maybe not really (?).  Dark  knight  2149  19:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't debate that the New Gods are notable, but this is just pure plotcruft and lists every minor character. I don't think that the New Gods need a separate article to discuss their notable members, but either way, this is not that article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with New Gods.  D r e a m Focus  22:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Obscure topic which does not meet the WP:GNG. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read: WP:IDONTKNOWIT. The topic isn't obscure at all and it passes WP:GNG given the existence of coverage.  Dark knight  2149  22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge with New Gods. It does seem like an indiscriminate directory list, with even the Old Gods being mentioned. Haleth (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I thought about redirecting this to New Gods but why bother? The title is unlikely to be search for, and this seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:NLIST otherwise. Nothing to merge, as this is almost totally unreferenced, too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the prominence that the New Gods have in both comic book history and in the DC Universe, and the demonstrable existence of heavy coverage, List of New Gods is a likely search term. Ignorance on the topic is not the same thing as cruft.  Dark knight  2149  22:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to New Gods in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE; the underlying topic is indisputably notable, and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:15, 24 November 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.