Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Marvel Comics characters


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

List of minor Marvel Comics characters

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Marvel Comics characters in this list are explicitly non-notable; both the title and the lede declaire that the characters are minor. There is ample precedent for deleting lists of minor or secondary fictional characters. Examples include the AfDs for Avatar: The Last Airbender, The Venture Bros., and Hannibal. There are plenty of lists of Marvel Comics characters on Wikipedia; there is no need to recapitulate all the minor characters onto yet another list. Neelix (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - definition of minor seems tenuous here, and the list is pretty open-ended due to the scope of Marvel Comics. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement that "minor seems tenuous" is close to the mark but "List of Marvel Characters that need explanation because they are referenced in other articles where such explanation is untenable but cannot support their own articles" is a bit long. And the "easy" alternative to this type of list - linking to a wiki in the body of articles - isn't looked on kindly. Yes, there are a number of list of Marvel characters, though it is unclear which one(s) the nom would suggest shipping the contents of this list to long with re-pointing the redirects. And those list do run the gamut from some information to bare bullet lists of names, the latter of which really aren't that helpful in help a reader understand anything. And looking at the previous AfDs, consolidation or redirection has been result - intended or - of the AfDs. That is something that works well with a relatively closed item like a TV show or film series. It doesn't work that well with the material related to Marvel. - J Greb (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nomination is based on a mistake.  While the characters on the list are non-notable as the nomination says, that's not actually a problem:- individual items on a list don't have to be notable.  The test of notability that properly applies to this list is whether "Marvel Comics characters" are notable.  (See WP:LISTN.)— S Marshall  T/C 22:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unusual idea for an article. But "minor" does not mean "not notable" or "not significant". A minor character can influence a story in a major way. Similarly, although notability is not inherited, the effect of a minor character in a story is.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 11:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment This list seems to be made of characters that are unable to be put onto the other lists because they don't fit any of those categories. I would suggest that adding content further explaining why these minor characters are important in their appearances, thus helping to establish notability that is easier to recognize for editors that don't realize "minor" does not mean "not notable" or "not significant". Kurt Parker (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above comments, although a rename might not be a bad idea to avoid the implication that the characters in the list are inherently not notable. There are a plethora of character articles that people have created over the years (guilty as charged, I'll admit) that probably don't warrant having their own articles, but instead should be merged somewhere, and this is the best place for them. Rather than delete, I think this list will be expanded over time, and will ultimately take up several pages. BOZ (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator - I agree that articles about non-notable characters can be merged into lists, but List of Marvel Universe characters and its subpages are the appropriate targets for those mergers. The lists of Marvel Universe characters do not exclude minor characters, therefore List of minor Marvel Comics characters is simply redundant. Neelix (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How are you on nutshell character descriptions, publication notes and and external link column migrating to the 27 page list? - J Greb (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My track record should demonstrate that I'm willing to put the time in. Neelix (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if you'd be willing to help perform such a merge, then it makes no sense to request deletion over a merge, because you seem to be arguing for a merge as it is. The text in the current list has been modified from the previously articles, so we would not be merging from the articles themselves, but from the list into another list. BOZ (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to put the time into merging articles about characters that are referenced in reliable secondary sources; the characters on this list do not pass that criterion. Characters that are referenced only once in reliable secondary sources are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, but they are appropriate to include on a list of characters. Contrariwise, characters that are not referenced in reliable secondary sources at all do not justify inclusion on Wikipedia at all. A list entirely made up of such characters is against several of Wikipedia's guidelines, as Jfgslo points out below. Neelix (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then there are some issues about the ability of Wikipedia to clearly and sufficiently cover works of serial fiction. Mainly where characters get mentioned in articles and do not get or cannot be clearly explained within the scope of that article. Pointing to a list without descriptions (the 27 pager) dose not serve any good purpose. Right now we have multiple articles being added and maintained that only fill that need. This is a step towards fixing that without expunging the information. postdlf makes a fair observation - this or something similar should have the "major" characters, the ones supporting their own articles or meeting the "at least mentioned once in a reliable secondary source", should be included and wind up replacing the current 27pg bullet point list. Unfortunately I don't see that as a "quick" event or one that would happily work as "upgrade the list entries as you go" process. - J Greb (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia explicitly does not include plot-only descriptions of fictional works; that is the inherent nature of lists of fictional characters that do not have any reliable secondary sources. If you are interested in working on such lists, it would be better to do so on the Marvel Comics Database, not on Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're running in circles. And it's increasingly feeling like the upshot is to not provide information to help understand elements in works of fiction in any way shape or form. It seems that it is fine that characters may be mentioned in other articles but it is not within Wikipedia's remit to provide a contextual nutshell for the person reading those articles or a direct link to where that information can be found. That comes off as a disservice to a person using Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not a little elitist. The initial intent of this list was to help in housing that nutshell information that isn't proper to pepper other articles with. In that regard, 24 of the 28 articles that have been merged in have been done so boldly. Of the remaining four one was the response to a PROD, one handling a PROD that was deleted, one a change in an AfD merge, and one directly from an AfD merge. Of the 24 bold merges, all were plot dumps of varying lengths, most were linked to other articles, and a number had longstanding plot/source maintenance tags that no one was dealing with. And only one of those merges was Talk:Protégé (comics) contested]] in any way. While I understand WP:PLOT and am not a huge fan of articles that disproportionally use plot synopsis, I also understand the need to have at least some information present on plot elements mentioned in other articles and that large sections/groupings of articles can only be pushed so far in one go. An ideal end result would have had the plot section knocked down to somewhere between one and four sentences and the external link(s). Now, due in part to this discussion and specifically postdlf's points, it's clear that the intent should include the articles on characters that aren't solely plot. I'd still like to see the "description" of the characters held to a max of three or four lines, but it provides a more functional and encyclopedic handling of the material. And including the links - to Wikipedia articles where the justifiably exist or to either Marvel Database or Marvel Universe Wiki - serves the encyclopedic purpose of pointing a reader to where further information can be found. And one last point regarding those 24 bold merges... If this articles is removed, I don't think it is possible to apply that as an AfD of those articles. That is, they get restored as they were. - J Greb (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The characters within the list are not notable per the general notability guideline. The article is referenced exclusively with primary sources which do not show notability for the individual characters in the list or for a list of minor characters in any way. Per the criteria of notability for stand-alone list, a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the sources within the article show that this is not the case. A quick search engine test shows unreliable sources and plot descriptions with no critical commentary or real-world context. Also, the article should be deleted since it is an unnecessary content fork of several other character list of the Marvel Universe and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context, which makes it non-encyclopedic. It is also against the criteria of appropriate topics for lists because it is trivial and non-encyclopedic and it is not related to human knowledge. Jfgslo (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment List of minor DC Comics characters should be included in this deletion.130.120.37.11 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of Keep. A discussion was made in the Comics WikiProject that we should have a place to put all these not-notable or stub articles of the characters. And a list article was always a better place for them. Furthermore I would go far enough to say that this is more useful than the List of Marvel Comics characters for it was always mainly a list that doesn't do information on the character that instead linked the characters whether they had an article or not. It's like a category but instead it will also show characters that don't have articles by redlinking them. Even then when we AFD'd something like the minor Avatar characters it mainly didn't deserve stand-alone but the result was always to merge it to another article. That's not the case for this one for there is nowhere for this to be merged. And deletion might make it complicated for the articles turned redirections if this gets deleted. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per S Marshall and Jhenderson777. This list is in furtherance of coverage of Marvel Comics characters, a media franchise lasting five decades (seven if you count predecessor companies such as Timely and Atlas).  There is no requirement that the items on a list merit individual articles, and there is no possible merge target.  I personally don't like the division between minor and major; these lists should also index characters that have articles, by giving a brief summary in the list and linking to those articles, but that's an editing decision.  postdlf (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should be pointed out that all of the guidelines that have been quoted in this AfD have supported deletion; no guidelines have been quoted that support keeping the article. WP:LISTN, WP:PRIMARY, WP:CFORK, WP:PLOT, and WP:SALAT all call for this article to be deleted. Neelix (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - It should also be pointed out that guidelines, unlike policies that should be held as close to as possible, are supposed to be flexible and based on the assumption that exceptions will exist that stretch, buck, or break their strictures. Notability (LISTN), Content forking, and Manual of Style (stand-alone lists) (SALAT), are guidelines and should be treated as such. And that while No original research (PRIMARY) and What Wikipedia is not (PLOT) are policies, the sections pointed to do allow for limited use of both in material dealing with work or elements of fiction. - J Greb (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed: limited use, not entire articles. Neelix (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the appropriate way of dealing with this minor material. The correct interpretation of NOT PLOT is completely disputed, and the only reason it hasn't been replaced is the total disagreement on what should replace it. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete S.Marshall is close, but not quite right. The test is not whether "Marvel Comics characters" together are notable but whether minor Marvel Comics characters are notable (that is, covered together as such). Neelix gets it right, this should be included in List of Marvel Universe characters if it can be sourced. Per WP:LISTN, which S.Marshall uses as the basis of the argument, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A conglomeration of non-notable things does not together achieve N unless covered together as a concept/set/group. On the other hand, adding discussion of non-independently notable aspects of a notable topic can be fine. DGG's reference to NOTPLOT missing the mark, too, I think, because the same rationale applies whether this is about fictional characters or any other non-notable subgroup of a notable group. And I agree wtih postdlf concern about the minor/major distinction (it strikes me as nearly always OR), but a delete or merge to a broader topic fixes this issue, while a keep does not.Novaseminary (talk) 04:58, 24 May 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.