Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicky Cavella


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nicky Cavella

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Minor character who appears in two arcs (and @8 issues in total) of the punisher's 30+ year history. Is Garth Ennis a master when it comes to writing the Punisher? yes. Is the story that Cavalla appears in thrilling and chilling? yes it is. Is Cavella the subject of multiple reliable sources secondary sources? nope. Is he the subject of cultural readings? nope. is the character anything more than a run of the mill "guy for the punisher to shoot in the guts and live to die in the woods?" nope. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article should stay put. Many other characters who have appeared in minor roles have their own Wikipedia pages, such as Loony Bin Jim, who only appeared in a film and no comics, and Barracuda, who appeared in three story arcs and an upcoming videogame. It is also worth mentioing that Cavella is romoured to be a villain in the upcoming Punisher: War Zone sequel, should it be made. We learn more about Cavella than any other villain in the Punisher Max series, as many of the other villains did not have detailed backstories as he did. For example:


 * In In the Beginning Cavella is the driving force behind the story as he sets most of the events into motion. We learn very little about the other villains who appeared in the story (Ink, Pittsy, Laurence Barruci and Massimo Cesare), for instance we do not learn Inks first name and only very little about his and Pittsys past. In Kitchen Irish, we again learn little about the main villains (Maginty and Finn Cooley), and their backstories, exept that Cooley have is Irish, has a nephew and damaged his face by setting his bomb off too early, and that Maginty is Irish and was racially abused. Although the villain Zarkahov, who appeared in the Mother Russia and Man of Stone story arcs had a fairly fleshed out backstory, we do not learn as much about him as we did Cavella, and we never get a narrative through his point of view, as we did with Cavella. The two slavers, Cristu and Tiberiu Bulat, also only have very limited backstories. The generals in Valley Forge, Valley Forge are also not paricularly prominent characters as we learn very little of them individually. The widows in widowmaker had fairly detailed backstories although their husbands appear as more prominent villains than they do. Rawlins is the character who appears in the most storyarcs, and we learn a lot about his backstory, although he was usually portrayed as being a relatively minor character. Barracuda could be argued as being of the same importance as Cavella, as he appears as the main atagonist in two story arcs and his own spinoff series, in which he was the protagonist. Similar to Cavella, at one point the story is told through his narrative (when the Punisher has him tied up in the car) although we learn very little of his early life or backstory, we do not even know his real name.


 * Therefore, I believe that Cavella is the most prominent villain apearing in Garth Ennis's run on Punisher Max, and therefore, like all self respectin Marvel villans, deserves his own Wikipedia article. I do not belive that he is nothing but a run of the mill guy for the punisher to shoot in the guts and live to die in the woods, I believe that the whole purpose of his actions were to test the boundaries of man made evil, and also to see how far the Punisher would go when pushed hard enough. If you believe that there are notr enough secondary sources on the article than why not go and find some? Lastly, it did take a long time to create the article and I was very proud of it, so I will be disapointed if it is removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor 155 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But by that logic, about 50% of the characters in the Ennis Max run would have their own pages because of the intertextuality that occurs between arcs - yet none of them are covered by reliable indepedent sources. There is much discussion about Ennis's writing but with a couple of exceptions none of them have the critical readings or analysis that provide the basis for an article. The articles would be purely (as this article is) plot summaries because we cannot discuss them in terms of their cultural impact or their impact to the narrative - because we's don't have the "bricks" to build that house. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Emperor (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sounds like a significant character in a notable work of fiction to me. And since when do you nominate a character from Marvel comic books for deletion anyway?  If you succeed in deleting this one, will you go after other characters from articles that have been around for years, but who don't have any third party media references?  In fact, how many characters would actually meet that requirement, if any at all?  Notable comics/manga cartoons/anime have character pages.   D r e a m Focus  21:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know nothing about manga characters, I do however own every punisher comic every published and in over the 600+ issues I own this character appears as a supporting character in one arc and a main character in another arc. He doesn't appear in any of the reference works I own about the character, He doesn't appear in any of the more generalist marvel reference sources I own or any of the scholarly resources I have on the character. I cannot see how he is significant from any of the sources I have access to. Could you expand what it is about the text or the secondary sources *you* have access to that makes him notable? You seem to be suggesting we have a separate article for every single character who has every appeared in a marvel comic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is enough information to fill its own article, then yes, no reason not to have it. If it was only just a paragraph mention or something, then I'd say combine it with other minor characters.   D r e a m Focus  21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and transwiki (as it seems a shame to lose the information). There is no demonstration of notability (to satisfy WP:FICT) and no real out-of-universe coverage (to satisfy WP:WAF) - all we have is a retelling of the plot. Barracuda (comics) and Loony Bin Jim are mentioned in comparison - the latter should just be redirected to the film article as it adds nothing extra there (and fails similar guidelines) and the former has been the focus of their own limited series (so there is a more potential for sources and discussion of the character development) but that is still pretty poor, just with more potential for improvement. All that said, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument - we are discussing what to do with all the comics characters failing the various guidelines - we will be merging a lot to minor character articles and I can see this character being one that will appear there but it would still be trimmed right back. So transwiki to the Marvel Comics wikia as, whatever happens, this can't survive in the form it is in. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete due to an almost total lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is the best I could find and I don't think it's enough because it's just one short opinion piece from a site that I'm not sure carries a lot of weight. Reyk  YO!  22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of references. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as significant character. No objection to combining it with others in a combination article,which ought to be the default here. Was it considered? I note that the current status of WP:FICT is questionable, and the specific wording with respect to the possible requirement of external sourcing for character notability the most disputed part of it., At the present state of the discussion there, one could justify almost any decision by claiming support from WP:FICT DGG (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But what's significant about him? how is he significant? How have scholarly or cultural or media sources discussed this? He's the badguy of the week in a very very very well told story but that's all he is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Most comic book characters, or even comic books themselves, are never reviewed anywhere. So you can't expect everyone to take that notability guideline/suggestion seriously.  The comic book is successful, plenty of people read it, and thus the characters within it are notable if there is enough information about them, or they have done a significant event.   D r e a m Focus  19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that somehow WP:GNG just don't apply here? Although you haven't actually said why. Notability isn't inherited or you could start an article on any character who has appeared in a popular comic book. There clearly has to be a limit on this kind of thing and this character is falling well below such limit. (Emperor (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * This is an example of special pleading. Reyk  YO!  23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete no credible postulation of out-of-universe significance or notability. DGG misses the point completely. Notability within a fictional context does not equal encyclopedic notability. That has been maintained by the vast majority of editors at WP:FICT, a few stubborn voices of opposition notwithstanding. Eusebeus (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say just the opposite about the discussions there. Notability within a fictional content has been recognised by a wide range of contributors there except a few individuals who are still trying to  prevent the establishment of the consensus.  DGG (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete ficitional character with no independent notability established that would justify an encyclopedia article on the fictional character. Fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (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.