Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liz Allan


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Liz Allan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fictional character who has received no significant coverage in reliable sources - written entirely in an inuniverse style, and little encyclopaedic content to merge elsewhere. Fails WP:GNG - rejected PROD. Claritas § 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - per Notability of Fiction's "Articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria". This is a well developed article whose topic has appeared since September 1963 in the Spider-man fictional world. A compendium already sources this article and either Spider-man, Stan Lee, Steve Ditko and or Marvel Comics can supply the reliable sources needed for this article. The subject gets ghits as she was Peter Parker's love interest which means that the more reliable and verifiable URLs should be added as secondary sources or citations. While notability is not transferred, the creators (Lee and Ditko), Marvel Comics and Spiderman are notable. NBOOKS applies as Spider-man has appeared in book form which is a subcat of this AfD. Therefore, by knowing that Lee, Ditko, Marvel Comics and Spiderman are notable, deriative works or terms that merit an article that would not fit into the main article because it is a large topic, are also presumed to be notable by NBooks Criteria #1, #3 and #5.
 * WP:FICTION isn't a policy or guideline. You may want to read WP:NOTINHERITED. Claritas § 08:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nominating this article for deletion is just like nominating Commissioner Gordon for deletion. And don't say other stuff exists. My point is that they are both very important to a popular superhero (in Gordon's case, Batman). Both characters have also been adapted numerous times including in shows and movies. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't feel like looking for sources, but trust me that's she's notable. She first appeared in Amazing Fantasy 15, and every bit of that comic has been dissected ad nauseum in secondary sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This character is noticed at length in this encyclopedia and so the character's notability is established. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not an independent reliable source. There's enough coverage of her, per WP:PLOT, at List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Claritas § 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The author of this work is independent of the original author while the publisher in this case is a excellent guarantee of reliability. Trying to wikilawyer away substantial sources of this kind is contrary to common sense which is an essential ingredient of any guideline.  The source is fully compliant with our principle of verifiability and so there is no case for deletion.  The list that you suggest as an alternative provides no sourced information about this notable topic and so does not meet the requirements of our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So if Comic Book Company X produces a derivative work on Comic Y by Author A, published by Comic Book Company X, which is written by Author B, then Character Z in Comic Y is now notable ? It's not independent if it was a derivative work produced by the same company - as Comic Y in almost all cases wasn't written by a single author anyway. Per WP:PLOT, excessive plot summary is completely unnecessary.
 * The source is fine for our purposes being reliably authoritative and independent of the subject. The subject in this case is a fictional character who, by definition, does not exist and so there is no improper COI.  Per WP:N, independence means avoiding stuff like "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases.  The source is not promotional, it is explicitly encyclopaedic and so is excellent evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep by default I can't say I agree with anything much suggested above, but since this is at least a marginally important bit-player in a major comics series (but a non-entity in terms of offshoots) then this character at the very least belongs in a character list like List of Spider-Man supporting characters. Characters like this do belong somewhere so deletion shouldn't really come into it. Said merging is best done with the aid of sources as part of maintaining the appropriate list, so until someone decides to open discussions to that affect it's best left IMO. Someoneanother 20:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above Keepers. BOZ (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Comic sources are annoying. All the good ones are in books that aren't google searchable, and the rest are about recent stuff.  Single recent issues can pass NOTE, and famous characters with 40 year histories can require going to a big city library.  In any case, here's a ref that would take us halfway to establishing notability for an article on Liz Allan in Ultimate Spider-Man .  There's another that goes on about her hair color if you want, too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peregrine Fisher's source. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - since there's no significant coverage demonstrated, WP:BKD is quite clear that the article should either be merged or deleted. Claritas § 08:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage has been demonstrated. Please see WP:IDHT. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, where ? The encyclopaedia isn't an independent, source and Perigene just suggests that there are probably sources, and doesn't actually demonstrate one. Claritas § 11:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is perfectly fine and the relevant guideline has been cited in support of this assessment. All you've produced is your personal opinion - not a scrap of relevant, independent evidence. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BURDEN, you're the one who's supposed to look for evidence. The Marvel encyclopaedia is not an independent source- the category of independent sources "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", and Marvel Comics are affiliated with their fictional characters - I made a reasonable effort per WP:BEFORE to find something third-party, but there's nothing to be found through Google. Claritas § 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An independent source has been provided. This source is necessarily about the subject but this is not affiliation in the sense meant.  Your absurd interpretation would exclude any sources written by subject experts because they must necessarily have a working relation with the topic - mathematicians writing about mathematics &c.  The point of independence is to exclude promotional material such as people writing about themselves.  This is not what we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's to do with the fact that they are published by the same company, and likely written by the same people as the comics, and provide nothing but in-universe coverage of entities. Claritas § 16:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In-universe coverage is not a basis for deletion; it's a style issue for cleanup. The fact that it is published by the same company does not in and of itself prevent it from being a secondary source, in that it summarizes and/or comments on the original primary sources of the comic book stories, nor does that in and of itself prevent it from being a reliable source.  Your dismissive "Likely written by the same people as the comics" shows 1) that you haven't checked yourself, you're just assuming and 2) that you haven't really paid attention to the subject matter that you're dealing with&mdash;a character that has been published in serial fiction for decades in multiple titles, and adapted into other media.  At any rate, the point of an AFD is not to persuade the nom.  It's clear you persist in your original opinion, and insisting on that opinion as the final word in response to the crowd of contrary commenters does not magically generate a deletion consensus.  postdlf (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per keepers above, but it does need cleanup and out-of-universe development. For a 48-year old character associated with one of the most significant comics properties, creator commentary and analysis of her role in the story should be out there somewhere.  postdlf (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2010 (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.