Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-At-Arms


 * 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 delete. Ultimately, the sources provided don't convince most people here: the "delete" side explains why they consider them insufficient, to which the "keep" side makes no substantial replies.  Sandstein  15:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Man-At-Arms

 * – ( 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 a WP:SPA vandal who IMHO should be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and PROD declined even through prods removed through obvious vandalism should not be consider invalid. But whatever, let's discuss it here, maybe someone can actually rescue this? Or at the very least I guess some redirect may be stamped on this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:45, 6 October 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  08:45, 6 October 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  08:45, 6 October 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  08:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a major problem with this article. The article is one of the main characters in Masters of the Universe, however as per the actual Masters of the Universe page it needs major improvement. Is there enough evidence our there for a separate page? WP:Before is an issue as the original is pre-internet.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't understand the accusations of vandalism against User:IQNQ. He's a new editor with less than 20 registered edits. It's not unreasonable to believe these were done in good faith, as he clearly indicates he believes their notability is obvious. Calls for a block are inappropriate based on this activity. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The user might be brand-new and inexperienced, but these were what we usually define as vandalism. Laughable! This is an important article! Laughable! This is an important article! Laughable! This is an important article! Laughable! This is an important article! Laughable! This is an important article! Laughable! This is an important article! etc, etc...  GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aye. This is not vandalism? Laughable... :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Argento Surfer, the spiteful comments by GizzyCatBella and Piotrus against me are very hurtful. If anyone is a vandal, it is those who seek to expunge profound knowledge of great notability from an encyclopedia. IQNQ (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you guys think calling a PROD "laughable" is vandalism, you need to get out more. There's been enough pushback against some of your nominations that it shouldn't surprise you when another editor joins in to say that you've tagged a subject they believe to be obviously notable. Though IQNQ's over the top description of this as "profound knowledge of great notability" does make me think twice... Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this "new user" is likely yet another sockpuppet of User:A Nobody. It fits their usual MO of claiming everything is "important" and repeated keep !votes with very poor rationales. TTN (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping User:Sandstein regarding the above, I am not familiar with this but perhaps you are or know who is, in lieu of going for a full SPI? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , no idea.  Sandstein   06:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , will you file a WP:SPI? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say only if they come back or continue to edit elsewhere. If they don't return to defend themselves, then that is more than enough to confirm I'm correct. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will start one, given that the user is spamming votes that can can confuse an AGF closer who may not be aware of the pattern. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. He's notable to the fiction, but I'm skeptical about enough direct coverage being found to show independent notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I endorse the renamed before redirect described by Zxcvbnm below. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a laughable nomination. Man-At-Arms is a superhero that is central to the Masters of the Universe, one of the largest franchises. He is covered at length in this article by Ricardo C. Ainslie, Ph.D. and this book by Brian C. Baer. IQNQ (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked user)
 * The coverage by in Ainslie is a pure plot summary: "Man-at-Arms, the father of Teela (a constant female companion of He-Man), creates a robot... “I’ve given him the power to be invincible,” states Man-at-Arms... Man-at-Arms reassures him, showing He-Man a... As Man-at-Arms is being thrown about, on the verge of annihilation, he cries... He-Man and Man-at-Arms manage to put Roboto’s heart back..." And he doesn't even get a dedicated plot summary, just mentions in passing here and there. The book is little better, through it does have a few sentences about his design, but I don't see anything that goes beyond description and is in-depth analytical, through you are welcome to quote content you think is worth discussing. In particular, it would be nice if you could cite a reliable source for the claim that " Man-At-Arms is a superhero that is central to the Masters of the Universe". Who said this?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Topic lacks coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Man-At-Arms (Masters of the Universe) and Redirect Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. The current title should be redirected to Man-at-arms. "Duh! He's one of the main characters of X!" may work for Wikia, but not Wikipedia.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as it seems to pass WP:GNG. Deleting things people don't like may work for The Islamic State or ANTIFA, but not Wikipedia.  --Moscowdreams (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2020 (UTC) (Indefinitely blocked sockpuppet)
 * Keep: I added real-world information about the inspiration, design and development of the character using three books: How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the Big Screen by Brian C. Baer (McFarland, 2017), Creating the Filmation Generation by Lou Scheimer (TwoMorrows, 2012) and The Art of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe by Steve and Tim Seeley (Dark Horse, 2015). I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - In light of the extended source coverage provided. At the very least, there is more than enough here to make the content mergeworthy.  Dark knight  2149  19:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per or rename per . --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge with praise to the short "development" section in the lead, giving some out-of-universe context, albeit short and arguably still a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. For a stronger keep I'd like to see something that describes the character's reception and legacy, for WP:NRVE. But there is verifiable WP:NOT information about development here that is worth preserving, whether at this article or at a suitable merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all the coverage in the sources seems to be name drops, brief mentions, or otherwise don't support notability. For example, the first source doesn't even discuss him. The second is a name drop and doesn't discuss him. The sixth doesn't discuss him either. The seventh just says he "helped He-Man in his battle against the evil forces of Skeletor." The 8th is another name drop. So is the 9th (in a picture caption none the less, not even the context of the article). The 10th source is a dead link. All those sources are a text book example of sources that fail WP:GNG. It's pretty clear whoever posted them didn't bother to actually check any of them. Likely they just posted links to whatever came up in a Google without putting anymore thought into it. Clearly, the other keep voters didn't actually review them before voting keep either. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When you say "all the coverage", you didn't address the three sources that I added, which are #3, 4 and 5. I didn't take out any of the weak sources; I just added three stronger ones, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 12:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I don't have access to them. Although, I doubt any of them have in-depth coverage of this character. Especially considering nowhere on the net seems to, or really any. Plus, from my experience your usually pretty lose about what you consider in-depth. If you have access to the books you could post the in-depth paragraphs though, or, I guess we are just suppose to take your word for it that they are adequate. It's fine if others want to, but I rather not. Especially considering your "good quality" comment about the sourcing in University of Boumerdès. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you try Google Books? Here's one of them. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * While this is a step in the good direction, do those sources contain any in-depth discussion of the subject? Few sentences is rather in passing, and GNG requires in-depth coverage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, good sources include: How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the Big Screen, and Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and The Journal of Religion and Popular Culture . Right cite (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us why are they good sources? Setting aside that they have been found by a sock, I have alraedy discussed above why they are insufficient - they contain only briefd passing plot summaries, no analysis of the character. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The first source doesn't have anything about the character in it. Not even a name drop. I'd love to know how that's a "good source." I'm sure none of your other sources discuss Man-At-Arms either. The article isn't about He-Man Mastered the Universe. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source doesn't have anything about the character in it. Uh? A search for "arms" turns up several mentions in the first source, and the second occurrence is real world context about the character's design. Between this and my response to you directly above, you're incorrectly assuming a lot of bad faith here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My bad. I was reading an article with the same title that I thought was the source Right cite was talking about. So, it seems like your the one not assuming good faith. Anyway, I've been involved in a few AfDs with the user and it's just a fact that they aren't that concerned about notability guidelines or in-depth coverage. Right cite has said as much. I see nothing wrong with pointing it out when the person themselves doesn't deny it Etc. Etc. Personally, I'm pretty open about not being a big fan of the notability guidelines for athletes and I have zero problem with other people saying so, because it's just a fact that I'm into them. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So, it seems like your the one not assuming good faith. Pfft. How so? The only assumption I made was that you actually reviewed the correct source before disparaging it. WP:CIR. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It was mostly the whole "Uh?" thing. Which came off as needlessly sarcastic. I'm not sure what competence has to do with this. Everyone makes mistakes once in a while and my comment about Right cite had nothing to do with their competence level or lack there of. I assume it's a personal choice on Right cite's part to not care so much about the guidelines. People who think everything should be included in Wikipedia tend not to. Really, it's their prerogative. Your instigation of this discussion has made the whole way more of a thing then it is or that I care about. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your instigation of this discussion I didn't instigate anything. This is not my nom, this is not my !vote, and I was not the first to respond to this !vote. I responded to your incorrect evaluation of the source (which is why I mentioned CIR, which was directed at you). That incorrect evaluation leads directly to your comment that I'm sure none of your other sources discuss Man-At-Arms either. Since your initial point was incorrect, perhaps you should reconsider the conclusions you drew from it. While you're at it, perhaps you should stop assuming sources you can't (or won't bother to) access are invalid. You've done that to two editors in this discussion. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your the one that messaged me about my evaluation. I didn't message you. So, you instigated the current discussion we are having about things. The person who "instigates" things is the "instigator." That's just a fact and it's pointless to argue about it. Obviously I wasn't saying your the one that started the AfD. Anyway, I was inccorect about that source. I can't really say if I'm wrong about the other ones though. Since I don't have access to them. Plus, I based my opinion that they probably aren't in-depth on a large amount of personal experience dealing with both of them. If 99% of the time someone doesn't cite reliable in-depth sources, there's a good chance the sources they posted in this AfD aren't going to be either. Both of them are rank and file inclusionists and both are rather lose with the guidelines, because their main concern is keeping articles. Neither denies it either. I'm not attacking them or anything by saying so. The reality is it's much harder to keep articles if your a guideline hardliner. Again, that's just a fact. So, I'm not reconsidering anything. Last I checked, we can have opinions about things anyway. Plenty of people on here, including the two people your taking with issue with me commenting about, have way more bat crazy opinions then mine. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * we can have opinions about things anyway. Criticizing a source without knowledge of it isn't an opinion. It's a prejudice. I'm not attacking ... anything You're voting delete and challenging keeps based on the person providing the source, not the source itself. I'm not reconsidering anything. Not even striking your incorrect claim above? Or evaluating the source from Tough Pigs that I linked for you? Astounding. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, people say things. Get over it. That's what everyone tells me to do when I have a problem with the critical things people on here, including ToughPigs, say about me. So, just deal with it and move on. If I have to, you should. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of the sources presented in this AfD, which is what the outcome hinges on.
 * Delete per Piotrus. The sources don't satisfy the WP:GNG. A closer look shows that they barely mention the character and some coverage being touted doesn't mention the character at all. There's a chance that the passing mentions still provide something worth discussing as part of another notable article. This isn't notable by itself and should be deleted or merged. Jontesta (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge striking my keep !vote above. I wrote above that there were a few trivial mentions to barely meet the WP:GNG. But a closer inspection of the sources shows that some of the sources don't mention the subject at all. I remain of the belief that a merge would be an acceptable compromise, as what little sourceable material would be better as part of a proper article instead of a stub (plus unsourced garbage). But I'm watching the discussion shift, and I'd support deletion if it helps form a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I took out the weak sources; all of those facts are covered by the Scheimer, Baer and Seeley books that I added. Why are these three sources insufficient? — Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping . I think the problem is the depth of the coverage. The fact that he was designed as a 'father figure' is interesting and a good start, but if all we have are 2-3 sentences in sources, and the rest is plot summary, he fails the requirement for in-depth coverage. At best, I'd suggest merging the tiny reception-like paragraph (that you added to lead) into some other relevant article, maybe about the main franchise, or the list of characters that mentions him. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The coverage here really is one or two sentences at a time, which is the definition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION mentioned in the WP:GNG. It's close enough to the borderline that I think a merge is actually the better call, but this article is likely to never have the depth of coverage you'd need for a stand-alone article. My revised comment is driven by my distaste for no consensus discussions which allow disagreements to fester, and my preference to cover primary material as a brief section in uncontroversially notable articles with lots of quality sources. Deletion looks more likely than keep based on my read of the current discussion and the lack of sources, but merge really would be a good compromise if we could pull people together. I hope that explains my revised comment. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.