Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madmen (DC Comics)


 * 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 List of Blue Beetle enemies. There is a clear consensus that the subject fails wikipedia's notability standards (WP:GNG) and currently should not have a stand-alone article. WP:SINGLESOURCE is an essay, but articles with only one source almost universally do not survive an AfD discussion, which shows that the vast majority of editors support the basic principle. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Madmen (DC Comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  13:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. I'm not seeing sources that would pass GNG. Redirection is a better alternative to deletion. Rhino131 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The PROD was disruptive because that process is only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected". But the nominator's attempt to give instructions to opposers indicates that they expect them.  And I naturally oppose such cases because the nomination's assertions lack evidence and are false.  In this case, we just get a cut/paste nomination which fails to address the topic or the fact that it already cites The Encyclopedia of Super Villains. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Leaning on a source that provides no significant coverage and not providing any rational so as to justify the existence of the article shows that the dePROD was done combatively. Rather than an actual good faith attempt at salvaging the article, the usage of Andrew's own expected opposition to justify that it's a controversial proposal is silly circular logic. I cannot speak to his accuracy in non-fiction spaces, but his work in the space of fiction is an absolute farce. Articles for deletion/Faustus (cat) shows that he gives absolutely no thought into his dePRODs in this space aside from the identity of the PRODder. Silly wikilaywering from a POINTed user aside, the article has nothing to establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- This topic has no evidence of notability, and the article is almost completely unsourced. There's nothing to merge. As a redirect, the title with the (DC comics) qualifier is an unlikely search term, and without the qualifier it is too vague to be useful. Reyk YO! 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Supervillain team in a classic comic created by one of the most notable figures in Comic Book history. If you aren't happy with the sources then do the work and source it. Someone, somewhere will look up Madmen and this article should be here waiting for them. Deleting is against the spirit of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.88.53.147 (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable fictional group with very little coverage in reliable sources. Two of the current sources are primary, and the third, which is the same as the one mentioned by Andrew above, is comprised only of brief plot summary.  Searching for additional coverage in reliable, secondary sources turns up nothing.  The fact that it was "created by one of the most notable figures in Comic Book history" is irrelevant, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.  I agree with Reyk that it also does not serve as a useful search term for a redirect.  Rorshacma (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD)." Although wanting an explanation isn't unreasonable, it seems by Andrew's vote that asking for one had the opposite effect. People can oppose a prod for any reason, so this isn't the best thing to bring up.
 * "But the nominator's attempt to give instructions to opposers indicates that they expect them. And I naturally oppose such cases because the nomination's assertions lack evidence and are false. In this case, we just get a cut/paste nomination which fails to address the topic or the fact that it already cites The Encyclopedia of Super Villains." You need more than just a single source to prove notability per WP:SINGLESOURCE.  Dark  knight  2149  22:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SINGLESOURCE is an essay: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community...". That source is an encyclopedia and so is quite adequate to demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the topic.  Andrew🐉(talk) 23:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Single source might be an essay, but it's nearly universally agreed that any article that is only backed by one reliable secondary source is highly unlikely to meet the threshold for verifiability/notability. Template:single source exists for this purpose.  Dark knight  2149  01:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with TTN, Reyk Yo, and Rorshacma. Non-notable fictional group.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. Sources exist which verify them as recurring villainous characters within DC Comics exist, but are of little encyclopedic value when it comes to sustaining a standalone article. I need to point out that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a content guideline or policy but a point of view argument and not WP:Consensus, and whoever wrote the essay also made it clear that it is also "not by itself grounds for deletion".Haleth (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay per and 184.88.53.147. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete (for now) - The opposition is struggling to demonstrate that the topic is notable. There are arguments that one encyclopedia source (by itself) is sufficient for GNG without any other coverage because WP:SINGLESOURCE is technically an essay. Besides that, no attempts have been made to show or even argue that other coverage exists. Aside from that, "C'mon, let it stay" and "The hero is notable, so keep this villain article" just aren't convincing points. I'm willing to change my vote if someone can reasonably substantiate coverage, which I doubt is even possible (judging from the responses here and my own source search).  Dark knight  2149  05:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Even if we disregard SINGLESOURCE, GNG clearly states that multiple sources are needed. See Multiple sources. Yes, that is also an essay, but it just explains the concept of multiple in this context. One can also disregard it, but again we come to GNG which uses the phrase "multiple sources", and that is the key issue here. Another issue is whether The Encyclopedia of Super-Villains contains anything that goes beyond pure description (plot summary) of the fictional entity, and that has not been demonstrated. I can only access the Google Book snippet view, but I don't see anything that looks like it goes beyond plot. Finally, no evidence has been provided that The Encyclopedia of Super-Villains' entry is in-depth. Yes, Madmen get an entry, but it could be as short as a three-sentence paragraph - at least I cannot verify it is longer, and nobody did so, either. If that book contains analysis that is in-depth and goes beyond a plot summary, perhaps someone would care to quote it? ---Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.  Dark knight  2149  19:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. As long as not more sources are found, I think there is not enough coverage to fullfill WP:GNG's requirements for a stand-alone article. However, we do have a bit of content based on a secondary source, as well as a reasonable merge target. So deletion and even solely redirecting would violate WP:PRESERVE and make Wikipedia one tiny bit poorer without a good reason. Daranios (talk) 11:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Blue Beetle enemies. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would support a stand alone article and the sources in the article are two primary and one brief mention/plot summary in a tertiary source.  // Timothy ::  talk  11:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect as there are not enough sources or coverage to support a stand-alone article and fulfill the WP:GNG. Would accept some small amount of merging after the redirect, which can be accomplished through normal editing processes. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 23 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.