Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overt-Kill (2nd nomination)


 * 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 and redirect to Spawn (comics). Apart from Upjav, the "keep" !votes are all basically WP:ILIKEIT !votes and not policy-based. As for the sourcing: the references added to the article during this AfD are all basically about Spawn, not an in-depth discussion of the out-of-universe notability of this character. I also note that one reference (Boyd, Todd (30 October 2008). African Americans and Popular Culture [3 volumes] 2. ABC-CLIO. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-313-06408-1) has, as far as I can see, nothing to do with this character or comic book. Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Overt-Kill
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A minor comic book character with little or no third person sources to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 21.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete No 3rd party sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of substantial reliable sources. Reyk  YO!  03:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * KEEP this is completely absurd. I don't read comic books and I've heard of this character.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "I've heard of it" is not a sound argument. I've looked for reliable, independedn sources that discuss this topic in detail and have been unsuccessful. Reyk  YO!  04:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's funny, because I found a bunch, character was created on a tv show at the behest of Stan Lee, was mentioned in 2 lawsuits and was one of the first villains who happened to be reincarnated 4 times throughout the comic.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment it's not a matter of whether you have heard of the character or not if reliable third person sources can be found to justify the article by all means do it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep this one is popularity and good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to have enough information to be notable. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently the argument of "I've heard of it" isn't a good argument here. Whereas constantly quoting Wikipedia acronyms and referring to Google search results for sources is a good argument.  If you feel the page should be deleted (any page, not just this one) then express your views accordingly without referring to Wikipedia policies.  As for me - I haven't heard of this character.  I have seen various sources online although probably not as many as the nominator wants.  I think that the article covers a notable-enough character.--ЗAНИA talk talk] 20:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is very well sourced - Washington Times has multiple articles referencing Overt-Kill, coupled with a solid number of publications on comic books (not just some random fan page) - definitely a keep. If there are other issues, then bring them up, but there's no way the rationale for deletion can be based on a lack of third-party sources. Upjav (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ansh666 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Did this really merit a relisting? An admin would have probably closed it sometime today given the amount of discussion and time elapsed since AfD nomination. Upjav (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it was relisted because the wrong consensus had been reached. This is Wikipedia after all!-- XANIA - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk &#124; talk 12:10, 5 September 2014 (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.