Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of government agencies in comics (second 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. First, let me say firmly that this AfD was not untimely -- several months is a generous allowance to give after a first "no consensus" AfD before relisting. "Speedy" keep comments were thus ignored. Having said that, there is no agreement on whether the theme unifying this list is notable. The list is sourced, and has improved since the first AfD, so no reason of policy compels deletion. If the article's present form seems unwieldy, editing is always an option. For now, this list is kept by default. Xoloz (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

List of government agencies in comics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Renominating due to several unfixed (and in my opinion unfixable) issues which remain after original AfD several months ago (result of which was "no consensus". Groupthink (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Too soon for you to try this again when you have nothing new to say.  Such impatient repetition is disruptive per WP:DEL.  Colonel Warden (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The last AfD was four months ago. That's not too soon in my book. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DEL says: "After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page."  I have allowed a reasonable amount of time to elapse, editors have had time to improve the page, and I do have "something new" to say, namely that none of the numerous issues with this article have been addressed, leading me to believe that they cannot be adequately addressed.  With respect, all of your points are spurious. Groupthink (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete no improvement in article since the last time; it's still essentially a random collection of trivia. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 18:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Colonel Warden. There is no time limit for improvement on an article. Also, this nomination is vague. "Several unfixed {and in my opinion unfixable) issues" is a pretty vague description of why an article should be deleted. Rray (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, read Speedy keep to see why your recommendation of "speedy keep" is silly. Secondly, "There is no time limit for improving the article" is completely misconstruing the point, which not about time limits, but about fixability.  Finally, this nomination isn't vague – its basis is pretty black-and-white:  there are no less than seven warnings at the top of the article, none of which have been addressed in months, leading me to believe that the numerous issues with this article are unaddressable.  Prove me wrong by rewriting the article so that it 1) is adequately sourced to Wikipedia standards, 2) is devoid of original research and unverifiable claims, 3) has a topic which meets Wikipedia standards for notability, 4) has an introduction which provides sufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter, 5) makes a clear distinction between fact and fiction, 6) conforms to the Manual of Style, and 7) does not describe works and elements of fiction in an in-universe style.  My money says that you can't do it. Groupthink (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, first of all, I've read it - thanks. Secondly, I'm not misconstruing the point at all. One of the reasons for deletion cited was the length of time issues remain with the article. Since there is no time limit, issues can remain uncorrected indefinitely. And yes, the nomination is vague, because you don't spell out the issues with the article that warrant deletion in the nomination. I disagree that the issues within the article are unaddressable. All of the issues you listed in your reply to me can be easily fixed. It's not incumbent upon me to rewrite the article to prove you wrong. AfD isn't a tool for you to use to force cleanup of articles by specific users in specific time periods. Rray (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that AfD isn't a tool for myself or anyone else to use to force cleanup of articles by specific users in specific time periods. Fortunately, that isn't what's happening here. Groupthink (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding "speedy keep": You're welcome.  Since you have read the guideline in question, I hope that you're aware that this nomination meets none of the criteria for being "speedily kept".  You (and everyone else who has recommended "speedy keep" here) might want to re-read the article to refresh your memory as to what exactly "speedy keep" means. Groupthink (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I re-read it again, and you're right. A speedy keep is unwarranted in this nomination. Thanks for pointing that out. Rray (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You gave me direct instructions on how to rewrite the article to meet your concerns in this AfD discussion. Of course, you also told me you didn't think I could do it, so you're probably just using a rhetorical device to try to make a point. Fortunately, your opinion that I can't do so won't be the deciding factor in this AfD. Rray (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Not only has the person using the Groupthink sock puppet actively tried to prevent any improvement of the article, he refuses to accept the fact that his/her main objections to the original article have already been addressed. --Basique (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your baseless charge that I am engaging in sock puppetry is insulting, rude, does not assume good faith, and precludes any response to any point you might make. Please retract your accusation and apologize. Groupthink (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I cannot prove my allegation of sock puppetry I therefore retract it and apologize. But I will not assume good faith on your part. Your confrontational actions as recorded in the history and discussion page of List of government agencies in comics, your continued threat spam on my talk pages when I attempted to update the status of the page after improving it by adding the references and changes you yourself requested, and your refusal to mediate make that impossible. --Basique (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment These are all your main points from the article page (It needs additional references or sources for verification - this was changed per your request, It may contain original research or unverifiable claims - this was proven false by a peer review involving members of the Comics Project, Its notability is in question. If notability cannot be established, this article may be listed for deletion - this is a multi-sourced list page, Its introduction provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter - this was also corrected by the peer review, It may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction - this was never an issue, It may need a complete rewrite to meet Wikipedia's quality standards - this was also corrected by the peer review, It describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style that may require cleanup - the article's title is List of government agencies in comics). After these issues were addressed and corrected I removed the relevant tags from the page, you reverted that change and left this warning on my talk page. This showed me that I needed mediation since you were no longer being reasonable, you refused to accept the changes you requested and yet you made no statement as to their accuracy of lack of. It was at this point that I washed my hands of the issue and walked away. Unlike the first time you put this page up for deletion, this time you decided to notify me that you had in fact nominated it again, but you left a bad pointer which directed me to the old nom. And here we are again. --Basique (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Is the theme "Government agencies in comics" really notable? And if it isn't, is a list of such things not even less notable? There are major underlying issues with this article that may, as the nom said, be unfixable, as there is (currently) no sign that points the other direction. – sgeureka t•c 00:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is useful for directing readers to other pages; however, there should be more information included to make it clear which serises these organizations feature in. Needs more context. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 01:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, needs more cowbell! ;-) But seriously, utility considerations must be balanced against the seven concerns that I listed above. Wikipedia does not and should not include everything useful about everything. Groupthink (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How could anyone not want more cowbell? But your 7 concerns could be applied to many list type articles that are not FA quality. I think this is potentially a good list, although the presentation/context needs some attention. Additionally, the article is sourced (drawing from primary sources) and although it needs a rewrite, AfD is not cleanup, and there is no time limit on article improvement. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete random collection of plot elements. Ridernyc (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree something has to be done with it but just deleting it all wont help. Many entries have there own respective articles so there would be no need to have much written for them (just keep it simple and list) while, others without individual articles, do need some explanitory text... these entries are also useful for linking too when these lesser known agencies appear in fiction character biographies --- Paulley (talk) 22:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So in other words, you want to keep this article because you think it's useful and you like it? Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Groupthink (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply...umm first i didn't say that i liked the article, in fact my suggestion would indicate that as it stands i am far from liking the article because it needs improvement, but its pretty obvious that you just don't like it. I do find it useful and if your going to tag me for that maybe you should read my comment again as that tag only applies when you don't give a context in what that usefulness is. --- Paulley (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're wrong, actually. I do like this article.  I think it's clever, novel, appealing (at least to those who enjoy the fictional worlds found within comic books), and would make a great resource on a fan site or comics wiki – but not here. Groupthink (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the previous objections were met adequately, so the reason for nomination fails. Lists can be encyclopedic, and the only way to get rid of decent articles such as this will be to convince people here otherwise, which is not going to happen. "in-universe" only means the sort of fan fiction that carries of the fictional environment under he deliberate pretense of it being real. A discussion of these agencies as if they had a real life existence, for example,rather than a discussion of their role in fiction. DGG (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from article: "The Agency was formed by Amanda Waller to serve as a small, quasi-independent branch of Task Force X. It performed global operations which were vital to the security of American interests. Valentina Vostok brought former NYPD Lieutenant Harry Stein into the Agency as an operative. Adrian Chase the Vigilante and Christopher Smith Peacemaker were contract operatives for the Agency."  That's as in-universe as can be, and is one of many examples that indicate that the in-universe objections are a long way from being met.  You also make no mention of the notablity objections, the secondary sourcing objections, the encyclopedic context objections, etc., etc.  I agree that lists can be encyclopedic.  This one is not, and never will be. Groupthink (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fanboy fluff doesn't belong. Struct (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been expecting you, please explain your position. --Basique (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My position is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of fanboy fluff. Now, please explain your position. Struct (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think my position was made quite plain in my earlier posts. And of course I know your position, you blanked the page under review (I will exercise good faith and chalk this up to a misunderstanding on your part). And attacked a member of the Comics Project who was trying to improve the page. Then you decided not to respond to both of his reasoned queries for evidence backing up the reason you gave for blanking the page, which was copyvio. In fact that was your last action until posting here on the 20th. And that is when I first noticed that you and Groupthink use the exact same formatting style when posting warnings, down to using the month and year of the warning. --Basique (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh darn, you found me out. Yes, it's true, User:Struct and I use the exact same formatting style when posting warnings.  In fact, I use the exact same formatting style as hundreds, even thousands of other users.  That's right, I command an army of sockpuppets!  MUHAHA!  Sigh... please familiarize yourself with Template messages/User talk namespace, and then apologize again for being woefully misinformed. Groupthink (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You know I don't remember using the term sock puppet anywhere in that post, do you see something that I don't? I lay out a series of facts and they are open to interpretation, obviously since you interpreted them the way you did, you chose not to exercise good faith. Therefore I await your apology. --Basique (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. You overtly accused me of puppetry in a prior post, and then you implied puppetry in this post (how else is one supposed to interpret "You [struct] and Groupthink use the exact same formatting style..."? Once again, you have no constructive arguments to offer, so you're resorting to ad hominem attacks. Groupthink (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not that I'm saying anything, but there do seem to be some interesting correlations between Special:Contributions/Struct (who almost completely stopped making large amounts of edits after Jan 15th 2007) and Special:Contributions/Groupthink (who made their first edit on Feb 25th 2007 and then started making serious edits after May 18th 2007). The two users also coincidentally have been making comments on the same day on Jericho (June 24th 2007) and this article (Sept 19th 2007), and in this AFD, Groupthink as the nominator and Struct as a delete vote. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 21:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have an answer as to why this other user has been idle and has had my back. However, I do know that I have nothing to hide, so feel free to ask an admin to launch an investigation.  Now could we get back to the AfD, please? Groupthink (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2007 (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.