Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindless Ones


 * 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. Any merge discussions can happen outside of this debate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  23:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Mindless Ones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. All sources are primary. TTN (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Just because the article is primarily sourced does not mean it has failed general notability guidelines. It just means it failed to prove so and that it is imperfect. The Mindless Ones are servants of Dormammu used just as much as he is if not more. I found pretty much a lot of sourcing to discuss the characters talking about Dormammu primarily. Hopefully I will find more. Jhenderson  7 7 7  20:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. A brief search turned up a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources, enough to satisfy me that this article meets notability standards. I'd encourage to consider adding some to the article and expanding it as he searched for more sources, but I agree with his point that the subject matter is notable and the article as it stands now needs improvement, not deletion. — Hunter Kahn 21:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd request you post some because I vastly disagree with your concept of significant. TTN (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's all the same to you, we tend to constantly go back-and-forth in these discussions and end up just going around in circles without coming to any kind of agreement and just clogging up the AFD. So I'd just as soon avoid that in this discussion, especially since the loaded wording of your request indicates you are prepared to disagree with me no matter what I share. You are free to conduct a search for sources yourself, though I would certainly hope you attempted to do so before bringing this to AFD... — Hunter Kahn 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dormammu. I'm not finding much coverage at all in reliable sources regarding them.  They are covered in plenty of non-reliable sources (wikis, fansites, etc), are mentioned briefly in some plot summaries, and are mentioned in relation to Dormamu (i.e. "Dormamu uses his servants, the Mindless ones" kind of sentences).  Pretty much the only coverage I'm finding that don't fall into those categories are a couple reports from last year where an artist revealed some unused concept art for the Dr. Strange movie on his twitter, which is hardly enough to support an independent article.  They are covered on Dormamu's page, so redirecting there would make sense.  Rorshacma (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not seeing anything at all in my usual sources -- Google Books, Internet Archive, Amazon and my own bookshelf. :) There's a post about a possible Easter egg in the first Doctor Strange movie. I think if the Mindless Ones actually show up in a movie, that's when there starts to be coverage about the characters. -- Toughpigs (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I typed in mindless ones Marvel and got some results in Google News. I am not not really very wiki active right now though to be thorough though. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:01, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dormammu. Much like Rorschacma, I was able to find a smattering of brief mentions, but nothing that I would consider significant coverage in a reliable source. signed,Rosguill talk 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sources that at least reference or more of the characters:

Jhenderson 7 7 7  19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * https://www.cbr.com/doctor-strange-mindless-ones-concept-art/
 * https://www.nuvo.net/review-the-dockers-fury-of-the-mindless-ones/article_58bf753e-706c-50df-9fbd-84971b1e0a3f.html
 * https://www.bustle.com/articles/193085-mads-mikkelsens-fate-in-doctor-strange-as-kaecilius-could-be-a-major-marvel-hint
 * https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a812145/doctor-strange-easter-eggs/
 * https://www.marvel.com/articles/culture-lifestyle/this-week-in-marvel-history-september-6-september-12
 * https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/doctor-strange/259811/doctor-strange-who-is-dormammu
 * https://vocal.media/geeks/did-this-doctor-strange-easter-egg-set-up-the-mindless-ones-in-the-mcu
 * https://www.cbr.com/powerful-doctor-strange-villains-we-hope-to-see-in-the-mcu/
 * https://screenrant.com/doctor-strange-2-sequel-villains-we-want/
 * I think that these three sources,, , go a fair way towards establishing notability, but I think that there still may be a case to make for WP:NOPAGE that this information is best merged to Dormammu. As I'm not terribly familiar with this corner of Marvel comics, my vote can be interpreted as on the fence between weak keep and weak merge to Dormammu. signed,Rosguill talk 19:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It's ultimately much of nothing. 1. Basic in-universe summary. 2. What seems to be some little indie band, album itself has 10 results on Google including that article. 3. Trivial movie speculation relating directly to Dormammu. 4. More speculation, but even less attention. 5. Just a single plot name mention, not even a sentence. 6. Plot summary only. 7. More speculation. 8 & 9. Extremely narrow listicles in which they are guaranteed to appear because there's only so many major villains to even list. There is nothing from which to even write an article. TTN (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable creatures in the Marvel Comics universe and foot soldiers of Dormammu. Also,, , and are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Minor characters for sure, but they get enough attention to meet notability standard. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dormammu. Per TTN, the references brought forth do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, only WP:TRIVIAL mentions. The article is fancruft that fails GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jesus Christ,, are you seriously still at it with these disruptive nomination spammings? This is yet another one that passes WP:GNG that you clearly did no research on. I figured you had slowed down since last December, but it looks like you are still going at it.
 * For those unaware, TTN's modus operandi is to go through as many fictional character articles as he can at once, scroll down to the References sections, and mindlessly nominate as many Start-Class articles as he can based only on that. As we have been over, this is highly disruptive and violates virtually every policy, essay, and guideline. Your behaviour has also been opposed by multiple users (at least as many that support you) and you have been warned repeatedly to cut it out and open a discussion at WP:DRN, per the processes outlined at WP:Dispute Resolution, WP:Consensus, and WP:BRD. Your philosophy seen here and here also borders on WP:NOTHERE, and you have been banned in the past for similar behaviours by the Arbitration Committee. You really are going to make us take this to ANI or ArbCom, aren't you?
 * You do not have a consensus and at least a few of your nominations (including Goblin (Marvel Comics)) are going to have to be completely re-discussed due to erroneous rationales. You and attempting to strawman everyone that has called out the (very demonstrable) problems with the way you handle nominations as "radical inclusionists", not to mention ranting about imaginary conspiracies, isn't doing you any favours either.  Dark  Knight  2149  06:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s called having different standards. This same AfD could easily be the reverse depending on who decided to take the time to participate. That’s the only particular deciding factor here. You and some others here think it passes GNG (and one literally doesn’t care whatsoever if it passes any policy or guideline) with these poor sources. Other people would not. If you are going to make a report, make it. Do not threaten it. Do not linger around for the next two weeks. Take whatever draft you have from last time, edit it, and post it. This will be my only response to you. TTN (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No clue why I'm randomly attacked here. Did you ever file your long-awaited ANI report Darkknight2149? Stop hijacking discussions to get in your personal vendetta, or I'll go to ANI myself about this persistent disruption.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  13:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This wasn't an empty threat, I filed one.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no "personal vendetta", as I will soon outline at the ANI thread. You just unintentionally shed light on the genuine disruption happening at AfD. I was also the one who has been attacked by TTN throughout these threads, and seeing how you have reacted here and at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction) is astounding coming from an administrator. If anything, the thread will likely result in the WP:DRN thread that you and TTN have been intentionally trying to avoid. I will be going over both you and TTN at WP:ANI.  Dark Knight  2149  17:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge to Dormammu per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 11:32, 12 February 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.