Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origins (Judge Dredd story)


 * 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 no consensus. Discussion on whether and if so, where, to merge can continue editorially. Star  Mississippi  01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Origins (Judge Dredd story)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I redirected this based on the AfD result for another Dredd story. The redirect has been disputed, so here we are. Move for redirect or deletion based on notability having been challenged since 2020 and the aforementioned prior AfD result for "Tour of Duty." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation,  and England. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

"Tour of Duty" didn't have any coverage or reviews to qualify as notable. "Origins" has https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/judge-dredd-origins-a-comic-that-should-be-a-movie/?amp (and I will look for others later). Richard75 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unstated "Keep" in the comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to Judge_Dredd. Right now the article doesn't show notability (there is a weak suggestion of reception through quotes in lead, with the original source (SFX magazine #148) not linked or not digitized). We can't assume SFX magazine #148 has WP:SIGCOV, but it would be a good source to check. Richard75 found what seems like a decent source, however, so we are now halfway to being able to keep it (SIGCOV/GNG requires multiple sources, for me two will do, although WP:THREE is a higher standard some adhere to as well). Please ping me if additional sources are found, and I'll revise my vote, please also note that if this ends up as a redirect, it should be a soft one, with history preserved, not hard deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge. The single ref from Den of Geek is RS on WP:VG/RS and seems to be WP:SIGCOV, despite editors agreeing in discussions that it's weakly reliable given no editorial policies... I don't know if the SFK magazine is SIGCOV, but as it only cites 1 page, I'm not really that confident. Even if so, there are two refs meeting WP:GNG, which is very, very borderline towards meeting the multiple requirement, I couldn't find more refs online. Sidenoting that the article's quality is pretty bad, as it's almost WP:ALLPLOT, sadly, but the two refs probably IMHO show there could be some selective merging and redirecting. Though, the new Guardian ref is fairly convincing, so this is probably borderline, but given the Dan of Geek ref being quite weak, IMHO I still would prefer merge. VickKiang 23:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting to allow evaluation of the newly proposed sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Other reviews and mentions:
 * https://amp.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/sep/12/week-in-geek-judge-dredd-sequel-should-adapt-origins
 * https://bigcomicpage.com/2015/03/05/review-judge-dredd-the-mega-collection-book-4-origins/
 * Richard75 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The found coverage can fullfill WP:WHYN, so this should be kept and improved rather than deleted. Daranios (talk) 09:33, 18 September 2022 (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.