Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Above-All


 * 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. Most "keep" opinions do not address the WP:SYN problems of this article, and cannot therefore be taken into account when assessing consensus.  Sandstein  07:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One-Above-All

 * – ( View AfD View log )

As it has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 43, this article is not really about a defined character (as Superman or Batman) as it may seem to be on first sight. It is a group of in-universe references to God (such as people praying, or comments about God's omnipotence in order to dismiss the importance of some character's superpower), grouped toguether as if they were meant to be about a specific and tangible comic book character. Even more, all those references are always given in vague and cryptic terms, the idea that they were meant to be about a fictional character is completely original research. MBelgrano (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep He's still a real character. Seems notable considering his importance in the Marvel Universe, the most powerful being in the entire multiverse. That alone seems to make an article on him notable. ScienceApe (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Define "real". It has never been clearly defined that all those circunstancial mentions were about a same character, rather than just metafictional comments to make the narrative closer to the reader. The comic books mentioned are distant in years and even decades each other. In fact, none of the times this "character" was actually used kept the same aspect. First he resembles Jack Kirby, then a glowing man in white robes, then a homeless... What's preventing us from considering that they are simply unrelated works from different authors? Has he said "yes, I'm the one the Fantastic Four met, and the one who commands Eternity and the Living Tribunal" or something like that?
 * As for power, that's an in-universe thing, and won't define notability. George W. Bush was also a very powerful figure in the militarized structure of the Ultimate Marvel universe, or the regular one after Civil War, but his appearences were just cameos and we can't talk about a "George Bush marvel character" either MBelgrano (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But how much do you yourself know about Marvel Comics, and its characters and hierarchy yourself? Are you qualified enough to give a valid statement about something you know little about? To compare this comic book entity with a former U.S. President is itself an irrelevant and perhaps even biased statement. Please, I am not willing to devote my time here arguing over this, and I understand that you seem to be upset, but I personally think this discussion has little point. There is an ultimate "Supreme Being" character in Marvel; I think DC has a similar character called the Presence, and though this character may appear in different forms, that does not make this being non-notable. How many more articles are you planning to nominate after this, then? Aidoflight (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The argument that in-universe characteristics make a character notable is incorrect. Notability is based on real-world discussion through tertiary sources; it's not based on in-universe qualities or primary sources.  That is a flaw with many character articles, but usually some can be saved by the addition of those sources.  If you can find a reliable tertiary source that discusses One-Above-All (and specifically One-Above-All, not other depictions of an omnipotent deity that are "probably" the same thing) then that would help demonstrate notability.Luminum (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Yes, I know very well about this topic. I prefer to work with other topics were my help is more needed (there are just three or four other users around working with topics related to Argentina and most articles are undeveloped or even stubs, while there is a good number of users working with comics and most articles are as developed as they should be without too much work left), but I know very well about this topic. For instance, I have the whole Lee-Kirby run on the Fantastic Four, including the issue mentioned. It did not sound at all as a hint about an unseen character, it was rather a metafitional reference to God as I described. Even more, they used this references to God from time to time, now I can recall the fight against Dr. Doom with the powers of Silver Surfer, at the scene when the Watcher watches the fight in his machines but does not get involved. And even more, I may also say that their narrative is very lineal, and when they temporaly conceal something from the reader they make it explicit (such as asking "guess the identity of our mistery villain!"); so I they really intended to create a "God" character, they would have done so directly.


 * As for Bush, I was setting an analogy, to clarify the difference between a character and a cameo of a real-world individual, event or concept. The "One-above-all", if developed as such, would be a fictional character. God (and don't mix atheism in the equation) is not. MBelgrano (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm sad to see that the article hasn't improved its major problem: It's a stitched together application of OR trying to link several instances of an omnipotent God character into one. There's no evidence here that the character 'exists' besides its sparse appearances when it is named as the One-Above-All. The rest listed are instances of what are also representations of an omnipotent deity using OR to infer that they are the same individual when there's no creative/development backup to indicate that that was indeed the intent. Unless the article can cut out all the pseudo-appearances and distill those appearances that are legitimately intended to refer to that character specifically, then the article lacks sufficient justification of an actual character who was used for more than a few minor appearances. A character who appears--briefly--that is used three or four times isn't notable. I also disagree with the treatment of Presence (DC Comics) as a comic book 'character'. The article is similar to this article in that it strings together different writer's depictions of a Judeo-Christian omnipotent diety. The difference between that article and this one is that the body of the article reads as an out of universe description of different author's use of a Judeo-Christian deity in the DC Universe and distinguishes between the different instances. I don't know why that page is even titled "Presence" since it makes it clear that Presence is just one of many instances that that idea has been introduced. In fact, that article should probably be titled "Depictions of Judeo-Christianity in DC Comics".

Given the similar circumstance (that Marvel has taken no authoritative stance of "God" and has apparently instead allowed authors to insert their own named and unnamed depictions of a Judeo-Christian deity), rather than erroneously string these together as a single character with a name, the article should be renamed to "Depictions of Judeo-Christianity in Marvel Comics". There isn't enough, I suspect, to substantiate an article about One-Above-All, and being under that article would allow a section containing the present content of various depictions of a Judeo-Christian deity while avoiding the OR of saying that these are intended to be the same "character" by different writers.Luminum (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You would delete this article, and every other comic article about a portrayal of God, just because someone chose to place a tag on this page? Believe it or not, I, too, suggested once that the article be deleted, but I have since reconsidered my position. And many other wikis have versions of this character, in various languages, as well. Some people are just not comfortable with the idea of a fixed Supreme Being, for power levels themselves are very complex in comics, and yet, are you sure you do not support this article's deletion out of your own personal bias? I don't want to get into a heated argument over something like this, but would you next nominate the other language versions as well? The supreme God concept has been referred to various times, and to erase all these edits would almost be to imply there is nothing at all of a Creator/Supreme Being suggested or shown in Marvel, and that would be inaccurate as well... Aidoflight (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This nomination has nothing to do with atheism. One-Above-All and God are different things. And if Marvel avoided the creation of a fixed God character, we shouldn't "fill the void" ourselves. MBelgrano (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But the One- Above- All is not a fan-term either, as I once thought, but the official name of the Supreme Being, which you might not have known, and I am not talking about atheism at all, merely that this article is essential because it provides a sense of the exact scale and structure of Marvel's cosmology and hierarchy; some cosmic entities only have had a single appearance, and yet, while many of you do not seem to care, or even know, for that matter, of them, and yet you focus on this. That in itself lends certain weight to the notability of this article. Aidoflight (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about atheism either. I'm saying that the One Above All character is a name applied to ONE writer's take of a supreme being and there is NO evidence to believe that other writers' depiction of a supreme being was intended to be this One Above All character.  The current article posits that all unnamed depictions of an omnipotent being in the Marvel U are intended depictions of One Above All, which is an application of OR.  There is no evidence that the writer of the Aunt May storyline where an old all-knowing man appears intended that to be "One Above All" rather than him just injecting his depiction of a supreme all-knowing being.  That is the problem with this article.  If this article stuck only to Marvel Universe depictions of One Above All when it is identified as One Above All, then it would only be an issue of notability.  Currently, the problem is that in ADDITION to the fact that the article strings together various depictions of a supreme being to populate an account of One Above All, it cite nothing that substantiates its notability.  Again, I've outlined what wills ave this article.  The critique of the OR is an issue that makes the article problematic in general.  Currently, the article demonstrates no tertiary sources that demonstrate notability (which in some circles is reason enough to delete.)  But, if you add those tertiary sources (assuming they exist) then this article should be kept.  If notability is fulfilled, then a bunch of these accounts that are attributed to One Above All need to be removed, because there is nothing to indicate that they are actually intended to represent One Above All rather than each author's personal attempt to assert a similar entity.  The analogy would be one author introducing Storm and then another author writing that another weather controlling mutant (off panel) had some role to play in a story.  There is no direct evidence to say that this second depiction was Storm, when it could just as well have been an author just writing in an anonymous and separate weather-controlling mutant.  To attribute the later to the former would be OR.  That's the issue here.  You have the creation of One Above All, who is supposed to be the supreme being of the Marvel U.  But independently, you have various other authors writing in one-time appearances of a "supreme being".  Then you have someone writing this article and assuming that those depictions were supposed to reference One Above All, when that may not be the case (and as I suspect, wasn't the case at all.)  That is what's wrong with this article.  If you want to save it, you'll need to demonstrate notability and THEN cut all that other stuff out.  I suspect that if you do, it won't be enough content to substantiate a full page, which is why it's better suited to an out of universe article that groups depictions of a supreme being or a Judeo Christian being (if that's what One Above All and these other depictions are meant to apply, albeit independently).Luminum (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And again, if you look at what constitutes notability per WP:N, nothing you've mentioned gives this article notability. Notability is DEFINED as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."  This article cites nothing of that kind.  Your argument is the exact opposite--that because of sources DEPENDENT of the subject (that it's important because it establishes the hierarchy of the Marvel Universe), it therefore satisfies notability, and that is incorrect.  The only thing One Above All warrants without independent sources is being mentioned when discussing the hierarchy, citing the primary source as evidence that it exists.  That doesn't warrant it having its own page.  We all understand that One Above All is the official name of a being introduced into the Marvel U.  The problem is that as far as we can tell, no independent source has mentioned One Above All, which would make it notable.  The other problem is that the article attributes appearances similar to One Above All to One Above All, when there's no evidence to support those claims.  If you wanted to discuss the hierarchy, then whenever discussing the hierarchy, it would be "essential" to mention One Above All as a canonical supreme being, but is is not essential for One Above All to have its own page to fulfill that purpose.  One Above All must fulfill Wikipedia's notability guidelines in order to justify a page.  I could write an article about the character "God" in Family Guy because it's "crucial to demonstrating the hierarchy and religions apparent in the Family Guy universe", but how notable is that really?  Only its appearance in independent sources meets the WP:N criteria.  So if you're really keen on keeping it, the burden is on you to find those sources and add them.  If not, then it means that the article wasn't notable in a real-world way to begin with as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines, and should be deleted.Luminum (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:SYN if not WP:OR, there is no source stating that all the appearances listed are that of the same character or group. The entire article is based on a erroneous premise, therefore unfixable by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is WP:SYN / WP:OR.  All the referencing comes from primary sources, and is a series of quotes and statements to advance a concept of a single supreme being in the Marvel comics universe(s).  There is no coverage of any significance in independent 3rd party reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do not keep in this form I see several alternatives here: 1) merge to Marvel Universe, in the form of a section of "Representations of a Supreme Being in the Marvel Universe" or something. 2) Delete as SYNTH, or 3) find some external RS commentary that ties this all together and adequately answers the SYNTH complaint. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment After the discussion at the wikiproject, I suggested to merge the article to Portrayals of God in popular media, in a section about comic books, and open a topic in the talk page about the ongoing discusson and the proposal. I did not even suggest deletion by then. Both tags were simply removed, after just adding a pair more of those mentions, and my comments were deleted. Even more, the merge tag was removed with an edit summary that said "fixing minor errors (spelling and grammar)", and the removal of my comments was immediately followed by an improvised rant. More clearly, they were clear attemps to conceal these removals. Not to mention that I received some requests of "watching somewhere else" and let this pass as if there was no problem. In short, there have been previous requests to fix the article, they have gone nowhere, and they will not be adressed. MBelgrano (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 Have you checked the link to Marvel Universe wiki? Content has been deleted a month ago. Not even Marvel itself endorses this "character". Note that it says that it was a duplicated entry, but that's because there is already another different and unrelated Marvel character that uses this name, the One Above All. MBelgrano (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Half of what you say is not relevant with this discussion, at all. The Marvel Universe site is not edited by employees, but by volunteers, which includes administrators. The deletion itself could well be an accident. Seriously, I'm sorry, but what is with you? Some people may have had issues with the article, but no one except you, after all these years have nominated it for deletion. That is why I have so little respect for people like you: You think just by adding a tag to an article, you suddenly have the right to delete it. Say we do delete it: That would make you so proud, so satisfied, the first person ever to nominate and delete the article? Besides, this is hardly the first time you have nominated an article you disliked, nor would it be through first time others have rejected your proposal. Do you know how many people have worked on it? It is not just the product of many users, but a community. And I ask again:.What of the other versions of this article? Deleting this article will in no way at all help Wikipedia, or any of us, at all. Aidoflight (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Let this page stay. He's an important character in the Marvel Universe. Rtkat3 (talk) 4:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This page has been here since 2006, and, as can be seen from its logs, hundreds have edited it for years, and hundreds view it every day. All its deletion would do would be to create its own void, and cause confusion and further uncertainty. At least answer this: Why hasn't a single user chosen to nominate the article for deletion after all this time? This article has also been set in templates and linked to many other pages; how exactly would its deletion benefit the editing community at all? Why choose now, of all times, to attempt to delete it, because you feel personally slighted in some way? I do not at all consider its deletion necessary or beneficial. Aidoflight (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment the fallacy in this logic is in assuming that these are all the same character. The article synthesizes a number of different primary sources with no connection (not even the use of the same name) to present the idea that they are one. In fact in Thor #84, the so-called God to gods is not single entity but group of entities called Those Who Sit Above in Shadow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet by that same argument, Galactus could be thus considered, if only because he is "higher" than the Asgardians, but no one, out of sheer common sense, would, for he is neither supreme nor a Creator being. This would imply that there is no such being at all ever featured in Marvel, which would not be accurate as well. To whom do you suggest, then, Odin sent Olson's spirit to? Celestial beings that feed off of his pantheon's life force? Also, by your own logic, why not delete all the cosmic entity articles and place them together in one huge list, if you care so much about in-universe? I'm really sorry, but I just honestly see little point to this discussion... Aidoflight (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article presents the position that there is a single supreme god in the marvel universe, I am merely stating that we don't know if that is the case. We don't know who Odin refers to as Him or if Him is the same as One-Above-All. Saying that they are the same is conjecture and therefore WP:OR. The entire article is made up of these kind of assumptions and if we were to separate them, notability goes out the window. Based on that the article can not be saved by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And, yet the One-Above-All is equivalent with the concept of a supreme "God", for many times it has been both stated and shown that the Tribunal, mightiest power of all, is inferior to this entity. Nor can "God" in Marvel be simply ignored and this article wiped away because some have personally never heard of this character. For instance, the Heart of the Universe, strong enough to defeat the Tribunal, could thus logically only be from one source only: the One-Above-All. Thanos himself, along with Eternity and Warlock, in half the issues of that series, spoke of the "Lord Almighty", and of a "Him" - should this, too, be disregarded? TriiipleThreat, you know that you would not be demanding this article's deletion had this user not chosen to one day suddenly nominate this. A single user, causing five years worth of editing to be erased, and over time forgotten? Not many users have participated in this discussion, but do you really think that most of us would actually demand for this article to be permanently removed? I think it was almost selfish for a single user to drag it this far, when he could have simply let it pass or considered other options; if the majority of the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians saw a huge issue, they would have mentioned it. I myself suggested that this article be removed once, but now, I realize that such would gain us all nothing and take away so very much. You allow articles of characters such as Numinus to stay, even though the character has appeared but once, and you think it is right to delete this article? Aidoflight (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By stating, "thus logically only be from one source only: the One-Above-All" you are drawing a conclusion which is the essence of WP:SYN. What you say could very well be true but we as wikipedia editors can not draw such lines. We cannot think for ourselves, make our own interpretations of the source material nor add our opinions. We have to rely on WP:RSs to do those things for us. You are correct the AfD is what drew me here, but that does not negate my argument. As far as other stuff is concerned, we are not dealing with them in this dissusion, only this particular article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The thing here is that Marvel have never created a certain character and say, clearly and directly, "This is god", as other fictional universes have done. If they have never done that, we can not "fill the void" and attempt to act as if they have. That's the key of the out-of-universe perspective. The out-of-universe view of this mess is that Marvel never adressed any character as God, and that within that limit there are many random things here and there (the Tribunal's unseen master, the Infinity Gaunlet origin, the Fulcrum, the Beyonder, the one-time characters mentioned in the article, etc.) that may be understood as references to God, if read in isolation at their specific stories. Of course, it's complicated in regards to continuity, as they can't all of them be God because God must by definition be only one. But don't forget that continuity is not a condition, it's a consequence, it's an artificial narrative construct built over different stories, implying that all of them are portions of a same whole. Sometimes this can be achieved, sometimes not. The day Marvel finally clarifies all this, makes a God character and explain how does it fit in the Marvel Universe, that day we will be able to talk about a "One-above-all" character or whichever name they use for it. So far, we only have independent stories that can't be linked ones to others without a great deal of creative interpretation MBelgrano (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * But who are we of all people to conclude that these beings are not all "God"? There is only one supreme God in Marvel, for all intents and purposes, but does such an entity have to appear in exactly the same form for you to consider it acceptable? Only the very obvious references to a Creator/Supreme Being were added; I myself, for instance, do not think the Beyonder was One-Above-All, and unless I am very much mistaken, I doubt many of us do. For instance, when was Beyonder ever called Him? The Fulcrum is also viable but controversial, as I myself noted. Only the very direct, if somewhat sporadic, references to an omnipotent supreme being/Creator were included in the article, and great care was taken to minimize detail and to state these instances neutrally as much as possible. After all, while the in-universe and original research policies are indeed important, surely they are also open to interpretation, and even to some extent subjective? Please, I understand and agree you have both made very true points, but I still do not think that it is absolutely necessary for this article to be deleted. Aidoflight (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides, you seem to imply that other comic companies, such as DC, have a fixed supreme God, but go look at its article: The Hand, the Voice, the Source and others are listed on its page. Has a definite connection been confirmed between all these characters, or is that speculation as well? But personally, no offense, I would not that, or this, so much as original research than as common sense. We may be working on computers, but we ourselves should be capable of basic reasoning; without that, even with all the policies and guidelines, Wikipedia would fall apart. And, again, what will happen to the other language versions of this article? Would they have to go too? Aidoflight (talk) 02:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We can not concluse that they are all the same character, unless it's stated so. Of course, it's not needed that a character keeps always an uniform aspect (I can recall, for example, the Q Continuum), but then it must established as a character trait that he changes it. Even more, I can also play the game of "what about this comic" and let this card castle fall, with a simple continuity error. Yes, it may be hard to make continuity errors with God, but yes, there is one. Do you know where does the power of the Infinity Gaunlet (which provides all the powers of God) comes from? It was explained at "The Thanos Quest". He said that it comes from an omnipotent being who was all there exists, and nothing else existed besides him. The comparison with pre-Big-Bang God would be obvious. And although Thanos did not name him "God", he said that we may name him God, that who would discuss that, but that he didn't thought such a being had a name or a use for it. This being, this "God", commited suicide and the Infinity Gems are small remains of his power. For an out-of-universe perspective, none of this is a problem: we simply point that this storyline says this, and that for others God would still be an active force in the universe. For an in-universe explanation, I would like to see how do you attempt to mix both things toguether (have in mind that there can't be one God and then another God, or two Gods at the same time)
 * As for other fictional universes, I was not thinking in DC, I was thinking in Futurama. MBelgrano (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Aidoflight, you seem particularly alarmed that deleting this article means that it will be deleted forever. Nothing is permanent and that deletion of an article does not prohibit it from ever being added again. The article hasn't demonstrated notability per WP:N.  Either find those sources that will or don't.  But if you or some other editor doesn't, then you can't ignore it and argue that it should stay.  If an article is going to be on here, it is supposed to fit that criterion.  If it doesn't, it will always run the risk of eventually being proposed for deletion.  Every instance of it remaining despite failing that criterion just means that it slipped through the cracks, and that goes for any article on Wikipedia.  The only thing that might keep an article up is if it's obvious that the subject has independent sources out there and it just hasn't been added yet.  That would be the case if someone created an article on Superman or Senator John McCain.  One Above All is obviously going to be more obscure and is less certain to hav those independent sources.  That's why I keep stating that you should try to find those sources.  If you do that and add them in, then this whole AfD becomes moot.  But if you can't find any, then it means this article fails notability and should be removed.  If at some future point in time, an independent source is found or is created, then the justification for recreating the article exists.  All the other discussion about the synthesis and OR is to point out that even if the article meets notability and stays, it needs a MAJOR overhaul and weeding. Also, please remember to be civil.Luminum (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Major WP:SYN issues, and the AfD comments of people in-the-know suggest that it cannot be fixed through careful editing. Plus, WP:NOT and WP:N issues that are actually the main reason why this article cannot stick around in its current form. – sgeureka t•c 08:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with One Above All, see One Above All (disambiguation) at Marvel.com first link the Celestial, second link our problem. --Crazy runner (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Possible keep: There is definitely some original research that has been falsely attributed to this character, but he is indeed a character that has actually been used a few times in the comics. Maybe if all of the original research is removed then the article would be fine to leave and not delete. Spidey  104  14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I tried that here, limiting the fictional character biography to only those listed in the publication history. But this also raises some concerns, me being unfamiliar with these sources I am cautioned by the use of "apparently appears" in regards to Fantastic Four, #511 and the term One-Above-All is not used The Sensational Spider-Man, #40 only "God" and "He". Can someone confirm that these are in fact appearances of One-Above-All without any synthesis? Still I am not sure if even three appearances in comics meets notability guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the lack of content on the article was what prompted some to find more in the first place. And you can't justify maybe keeping only three references and erasing the rest just because they were the first ones some random user decided to place here. The being in the Spiderman issue was indeed portrayed as the supreme God, as strongly hinted by his and Peter's dialogue; additionally, the issue summary itself called this entity "God". In DC, very rarely is the Presence openly called "God", but it is painfully obvious that even someone who has never read a single DC comic would see the character as such. Nemesis, the being who committed suicide, was a female cosmic entity, and, unlike the Tribunal or his master, is certainly not Multiversal, as the Gems themselves have been shown to have countless other versions, and in a recent Fantastic Four issue, the Gauntlet has been shown powerless beyond its native reality. The One-Above-All has been stated to be "the entity apparently responsible for the existence of all life in the multiverse, and possibly beyond", and is clearly meant to be at the top of the Marvel hierarchy and cosmology. Besides, you can't pretend that I was the only contributor to the page, though I do admit that I tried to add more to it some time ago; why not check the editor logs and ask the dozens of other editors for their own opinion on this? Aidoflight (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But the "God" character in The Sensational Spider-Man, #40 is never stated to be One-Above-All in the issue. Is there at least an easily recognizable physical resemblance to One-Above-All? If not, I don't think we can use it. Your argument is essentially if "A" clams to be God and "B" claims to be God then "A" must equal "B". That by definition is synthesis. The issue is even further complicated by that fact that there are multiple entities in MU who claim to be the supreme entity, like "Those Who Sit Above in Shadow", who I used in the example above. Onside note Aidoflight, do not take this AfD personal, its nothing against you nor the quality of your editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I do understand that, and I thank you for acknowledging that. But it just does not at all make sense to compare the Supreme Being of a comic Multiverse with just any character like Batman. Even DC's Presence is not explicitly called thus in all of the character's appearances, nor has DC ever directly made a character state: "There's an entity called the Presence, which is, beyond all doubt, the Judeo-Christian God." Should the Presence article be deleted because of that also? Besides, Those Who Sit Above In Shadow have never been stated or implied to be supreme, merely parasitic if enigmatic higher entities to the Asgardians. Please, you've known the article for five years, and you never said a single objection; you really want to go this far just to delete it now? Aidoflight (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is a synthesis or original research from original sources. Lots of things that exist in the real universe also exist in fictional settings. God is one of them, so are roads, birds, buildings... It would be crazy to have an article on each of the features of the real universe that also exist in the fictional settings of these comics.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete As pointed out by others, the article is original research by synthesis. Additionally, the article has no references independent of the subject from third-party sources so it doesn't have verifiability to check notability. The article is also written without a real-world perspective, focusing exclusively in an in-universe perspective. The topic itself does not meet the general notability guideline and the article it's a plot-only description of a fictional work, appropriate material for a fansite, not Wikipedia, so I believe that it falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment if the article is deleted, don't forget to delete as well the non-free image File:One-Above-All.jpg, which would not be used anymore MBelgrano (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you demand this now? When an article is deleted, we do not at all delete all the images it uses. You are not deleting it because you think it will damage Wikipedia, but because you are personally not happy that not a single user supported your earlier proposal to merge the article. You fail to address most of the points I mention, and to say something like, "It would be crazy to have this article" has very little place on this discussion. Please, I still stand with my choice to support keeping this article. Aidoflight (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not "demanding" anything, just reminding. Unused non-free images must be deleted, regardless of any other circumstances, that's an established policy. See Non-free content criteria MBelgrano (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It really does seem that that you have carefully thought this out to the end, haven't you, Belgrano? I am sure what if this article is indeed removed, you will ensure that no trace of this character is ever seen on Wikipedia again. But have you at all considered anything else, or the concerns and opinions of other users who do want it to be kept? Even administrators have made edits to this article in the past, and, no, for whatever reason they did not feel the need to delete the article; what do you say to the hundreds of users who have edited it over years? That we are all guilty of violating Wikipedia policy just because we contributed to this page? Aidoflight (talk) 03:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Possible keep: If the synthesis and original research concerns are addressed. If the synthesis and original research are not removed, then delete. Mtminchi08 (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Please strike my above vote. I had made one or two minor edits to this article about two months ago and was not aware until today that there was such controversy about it.  I had thought that it might be possible to strip it down to stub status but after re-reading the comics that are cited, I no longer think that's an option.  The whole thing is held together with too many "leaps of faith" i.e original research.  Perhaps if there were secondary sources for this material but I'm not aware of any.  Aidoflight feels pretty strongly about keeping this page and while I would really like to be supportive of his position, I'm afraid I have to say delete.
 * Mtminchi08 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - How do you expect the original research and synthesis to be addressed? The current entire article is just that.  It's removal would leave no article to be kept. -- Whpq (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename as "Depictions of an omnipotent deity in Marvel Comics", "Representations of a supreme being in the Marvel Universe", or any other equivalent name, and rewrite to remove assumptions that these depictions are all of the same character. --Waldir talk 18:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sourcing is all primary sources. So how does this help? -- Whpq (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the problem? Primary sources are not outright banned. Their usage on this article along the lines I suggest above are in accordance to both the letter and the spirit of the policy: "...primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. (...) A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." --Waldir talk 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a list of these depictions all drawn from a primary source with no indication from other sources to indicate such a topic would be notable. -- Whpq (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. I thought your concern was OR. I see now it is notability. Well, all I have to say in that regard is that (with the full disclaimer that I tend to be an inclusionist) in this case I believe IAR+UCS apply, in that it seems justifiable imo (useful and informative) to have an article on this entity, if reformed in the way I suggested or in similar veins. Of course, this is merely my opinion, and as such I have no intention to argue it further. --Waldir talk 01:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Provisional Keep Comic book characters qualify for articles so long as they have made significant appearances in numerous or noteworthy stories. If this character has made said appearances, then he qualifies for an article by way of notability. An important question may be whether he has appeared or referred to specifically as One-Above-All, or if the references in the article are vague, in the vein of Odin's comment, "There is a power far greater than mine - and it is to Him I commend thy spirit now." If there are sufficient appearances or mentions of him that can be clearly concluded to be the same character, then the article should remain. Otherwise, I would push not for deletion, but for what Jclemens mentioned on February 2, which was to merge or rename into an article along the lines of "Representations of a Supreme Being in the Marvel Universe". As far as the issue of primary sources is concerned, like it or not, a lot, perhaps most articles on comics characters give only primary sources for them, as that is largely what's available for them. Not every notable character has had entire books or articles written about them, like Batman or Superman. But's hardly a valid rationale for deletion. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's the whole point in discussion here: that the references are simply unrelated references to God, said in cryptic terms, and this article attempts to pick them toguether as if they were about a fictional character. If you want to see by yourself, check Reference 2 and 4 http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fnewnames%2F300%2F5%2F2%2F8%2F1%2F5281236.jpg]%2Ccontinueonerror[true]&scale=size[450x2000]%2Coptions[limit]&source=url[file%3Aimages%2Finetpub%2Fwebuse%2Fno_image_available.gif]%2Cif[%28%27global.source.error%27%29]&sink=preservemd[true] (copy this whole URL into a new browser tab to see the image). MBelgrano (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The links you have posted are not even on the article, merely drawn from citation sites you found on the article. Which is kind of more original research, so...you yourself mentioned that there can only be one Supreme Being, so wouldn't it really make sense that all references to a Supreme Being refer to the same character? I'm sorry, but aside from the endless accusations you make about original research, many of your own points seem almost contradictory. Belgrano, please, even you did not always think that this article should be deleted. Is all this truly worth your time and ours? Aidoflight (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be some controversy about whether he's a "real character" or not. Well my understanding is, most marvel comic fans know who he is, and what his name is. In any discussion over the most powerful characters in Marvel, he always tops the list. If he always, time and time again, tops the list of the most powerful characters in Marvel comics, doesn't that make him notable in real world discussion? I'm not a huge Marvel comics fan, but even I have heard of this guy. He may not be as popular as Spider-Man, or Captain America, but he's still notable. ScienceApe 14:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Notability only coverage by reliable third-party sources determines notability. The problem we are having is that without these sources we cannot even attribute all the appearances listed to the same character, so we don't know if were dealing with one or a dozen different characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your points are valid, I agree; and, yet, the Supreme Being cannot be a "dozen" characters; the name "One-Above-All" is in itself simply the name "God" in the context of Marvel Comics. I cannot understand why you must think that there are a dozen "God" characters in Marvel; one could even make an argument, I suppose, that Odin or Thor is "God", but, like, come on, that is truly a poor, even if possible, argument to make. But, TriipleThreat, please, do you really, beyond all doubt, think this deletion is truly necessary, or at all beneficial to any editor here? As it has been here since five years ago, surely you yourself must have known of it, and yet you were evidently not wholly convinced that it doubtless merits deletion. With all respect, I ask you to reconsider. And, like, come on, look at the Presence article, which even mentions the "God" of Vertigo, which has also not been explicitly "confirmed" to be the same as the Presence; though Belgrano has avoided addressing the points I made concerning this, if we delete this article, by his own principle, I fear he will have to spend quite some more time deleting many others here. Only I am not so sure if the editors of the Presence will be as eager to support its deletion as many here are. I tried once to have the One-Above-All deleted here years ago in my own childish personal displeasure, and not a single person did so or even responded; to this day, the only replies there have been my own. That says a lot, actually, and, in truth, just as Wikipedia's own policies can change, so can its editors' views. For I no longer at all support the deletion of this article.
 * I will address your legitimate issues, of course, as best as I can. No, the entity that appeared to Spider-Man did not tap him on the back and say something like, "Oh, hey, Peter, just to let you know, I'm the One-Above-All, the Supreme Being and Creator of the Marvel Universe—you know, the unseen master who the cosmic entity known as the Living Tribunal has sometimes mentioned in passing." No, he did not explicitly say this, but by that same standard, if someone said something like, "The World-Devourer of the Cosmos, Ashta, comes to decimate our planet! The end is nigh!", I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of us would indeed think this entity is Galactus, even though he was not explictly mentioned by name, and very few of of us would argue this. The fact that beings such as Uatu, Odin, Eternity, and the Living Tribunal have made mention to a Supreme Being simply cannot be ignored, as such is essential to the Marvel hierarchy and cosmology itself. In addition, Marvel has officially acknowleged the existence of this character, and they, at least, have deemed this worthy of inclusion in three of their character profiles: If Marvel has noted the One-Above-All, what gives us the right to delete this article and essentially say that this character does not exist in Marvel? Aidoflight (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying he doesn't exist. What is being said is that this article draws a lot of conclusions based on synthesis of primary sources. -- Whpq (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that was kind of the message I got from the many responses here; sorry if I was wrong, but I truly thought that was indeed what certain users here were getting at, though of course among many other things. I myself thought the One-Above-All was a fan term. But if this character does indeed exist, to delete the article solely on basis of WP:NOR is, to me, going a bit too far with this. But that is simply my own input. Aidoflight (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Have in mind that, when we talk about fictional universe, logic does not work as it "should", but as the fictional work states. After all, even more than super heros, fictional characters like Galactus, Eternity or the Living Tribunal are simply beyond any logic to begin with. Divine simplicity does not apply unless it is stated it applies; we can't describe the role of God in the Marvel Universe or how does he fit in it unless some comic book finally does so. Comic book continuity is a consequence, not a condition; similar but unrelated plot elements are unrelated until someone comes up with a plot relating them. MBelgrano (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep Significant character, though the article is in poor condition. Dimadick (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment' - Can you provide reliable sources that show this is a significant character? -- Whpq (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he means significant in the "in Marvel Universe" respect. As for "is he significant in the real world?", probably not. I understand that wikipedia recognizes notability from 3rd party sources, which suffice to say probably isn't much if any at all, but I still think this article should remain. My reason is because of how central this character is to the multiverse. He is significant to the Marvel multiverse because according to the Marvel mythology, he created it. I would say that's pretty significant. But yeah, I"m sure everyone will concede, he's not talked about a lot outside of Marvel lore aside from forum discussions and such. ScienceApe (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no secondary sources, clear padding and WP:OR. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any original research in the article (at least not anymore). The fictional biography details all of his appearances which are properly cited. ScienceApe (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Original Research precisely because it details all of his appearances. There are no independent, reliable secondary sources which analyze the topic. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, separate sources are not banned here, and almost all the comic articles use sources from a collected list of various comic book issues. Are you saying that, like, someone actually has to write and publish some kind of article about the character, to be considered a valid source? Besides, many sources were removed by other users for reasons of their own. If we take the issue of secondary sources as completely mandatory, well, we could probably justify deleting most of the comic articles here. Not that some here would not attempt to do so, but, still...take the Celestial of the similar name. What exact policy gives it the right to remain, if the apparent lack of secondary sources is such an essential criteria? I still honestly think it may be more because of the subject matter more than anything that makes people uncomfortable about keeping the article... Aidoflight (talk) 05:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people feel that "we could probably justify deleting most of the comic articles" on Wikipedia. The only reason they are not deleted is a vocal fan base that votes heavily in AfDs. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:33, 10 February 2011 (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.