Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madison Jeffries


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Madison Jeffries

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is sourced entirely from the pages of comic books, i.e. primary sources. No showing of real-world notability. Reads like a fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: sources appear to be reliable, and primary sources are fine to use; at least within reason and to not make inappropriate claims. Given that this is a fictional character the use of primary sources to make claims about the entry for the most part seems fine. The fact that the primary sources are comic book pages is absolutely no problem. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Regardless, the Marvel official handbook counts as a secondary source on the character and is cited. Notability is demonstrated by the character's prominence in an extremely notable form of American media. (i.e. marvel comics) Character is also created by a notable author, and appeared in multiple stories. I think this is sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Issues with style can be addressed through edits or article's talk page. Jack4576 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Primary sources can be used in articles, but WP:SIGCOV makes it very clear that at least two sources have to be "independent of the subject" to quality for notability, which this clearly isn't, nor is there any online. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting the 'at least two' from? Can't see that requirement under WP:SIGCOV. The singular secondary source, paired with the numerous primary sources suggest to me that its more likely than not that this subject is notable Jack4576 (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the guideline uses plural sources, "at least two" is the most mimimalistic interpretation of "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources". Sources, not source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "multiple sources are generally expected", is the guideline, not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 (talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Genuine Question - how can a Marvel handbook be a secondary source? It's an additional fiction created by the same company that created the comics, it just has a different format. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The handbook documents and describes a fictional subject, but is not itself an instance of the fictional subject. Hence secondary. Marvel being the publisher for both doesn't matter. (I note the authors for both texts are different anyway) Jack4576 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's crazy. Unless they've changed drastically since I last picked one up, they're written in-universe and often add extra fictional information (e.g. abilities never seen in comics, such as strength levels, or retcons like labelling Iron Man's armours). Marvel being the publisher for both really should matter as everything ultimately comes under the same editorial vetting; they're no more (or less) valid than a profile printed in a comic itself. Same goes for any of the heavily-vetted Official DK books and the like because it's all fiction licenced by the publisher and a primary source. A useful primary source, but a primary source nonetheless. It's no more valid in a sense of third-party notability than a YouTuber making a guide about themselves; they are not independent or objective. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep CBR and ScreenRant have in-depth write-ups on this character. Obviously needs to be integrated into the article, along with other appropriate editorial cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jclemens sources are... not bad. I'd prefer something academic, and where reception is less passing, but they are better than some random listicles. I don't think it's enough for me to vote keep, but I am also not inclinded to go with delete right now. That said, if nobody adds this to the article, at minimum, sources exist and plot summary and like should be added.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: J. Far too many primary-source based Marvel fancruft articles. If someone can pull it together it can always be returned to being a standalone article then, but until then it's another Marvel fandumb article that tried to run before it could walk. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jack4576 and Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the found secondary sources fullfill the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the claims of, , , and . --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2023 (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.