Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papa Midnite


 * 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. Merge proposals may still be discussed at Talk:List_of_Hellblazer_characters, but I see no real consensus for that action at this point. Consensus is clearly against outright deletion in this discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  18:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Papa Midnite

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with a copy-paste generic rationale. Let's discuss here, then. If this is deleted, I suggest soft delete by just redirecting this to List_of_Hellblazer_characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination starts by kvetching about a PROD. The WP:PROD process is only for uncontroversial deletion and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected."  Piotrus must expect opposition in such cases but still they persist.  In this fresh nomination, notice that they don't propose outright deletion and suggest an alternative instead.  So, why did they first propose full deletion?
 * The character is quite a major one as these things go. They appeared in issue #1 of the relevant comic and have since had their own mini-series, appeared in a major film and as a recurring role in a TV series. As a black character, they naturally attract attention for this reason and so deletion would be especially controversial.
 * The nomination is therefore quite unconvincing and we should retain the page for further work per our policy WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Week Keep or Selective Merge to List_of_Hellblazer_characters. This article should not have been PROD'd for the reasons brought up by Andrew, and the rationale provided by the nominator is just as generic and copy paste as the dePROD response he criticized. My WP:BEFORE reveal some coverage from Comicbook.com, Cinema Blend, Mashable, Digital Spy, Entertainment Weekly, Flickering Myth, Hobby Consolas (Spanish), A.V. Club though mostly in relation or in response to the character's appearances in adaptations/other media. Anyway, there is a difference between the character being noteworthy for coverage on Wikipedia, and whether it warrants a standalone article. Since the issue in contention is clearly the latter and if consensus decides that the existing sourcing does not convincingly meet WP:GNG, a merge may be considered. In any event, a merge proposal should have been done per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, with no prejudice for the article to be recreated; more sourcing may turn up in the future given that this character is a recurring one in comics published by DC .Haleth (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , The first source doesn't even mention the subject (did you mix some links?). Second is a baitclick that does not provide any SIGCOV. It mentions he briefly appeared in the TV, and mentions the subject four times, that's simply calling him an " immortal badass", "a fashionable guy," praising his jacket. Third is even worse, the subject is mention like two times, and all we get is a one-sentence praise from the show director of the actor; it contributes NOTHING to the topic. Fourth is a tiny interview with the actor asking him if he will appear in crossovers, he replies he doesn't know of any plans. Again, this contributes NOTHING to the notability. I am stopping my review here, since clearly you did not read the sources and are just using WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments, and considering the first source is off topic, it's a fail at even this simple task. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct, the first link is wrong, I guess because I scrolled too far down the page before I copy and pasted the link without checking correctly, so here it is, but I doubt you will change your mind. As for the rest of your...comments, honestly it read like another diatribe. If you read what I wrote in response, my point is that PROD is clearly an inappropriate course of action to begin with, since a cursory search indicates that the character is clearly verifiable and a PROD for the subject would not be uncontroversial. I included sources for the benefit of the participants in this discussion, and everyone is free to decide for themselves whether it meets WP:GNG. If you are going to be doing a source by source analysis, my suggestion is that you go all the way or don't do it at all. And if you read my original reasoning properly, I am not strongly in favour of this article being kept, but I am open to it being merged or redirected since there is enough coverage in my view that outright deletion is inappropriate or unnecessary per WP:ATD. I should also point out that you're not even arguing a proper case for deletion since you have presented a valid WP:ATD solution for this article, to be redirected List_of_Hellblazer_characters, in your own rationale. Haleth (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This would appear to be a notable subject for an article, and given the expansive list of coverage on the subject, it would seem ill-advised to delete the article. While a merge can be considered, I don't see a reason to do so. The article has sourcing already added, and I would disagree with the nominator's assessment of the article not meeting WP:GNG. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there is enough here from Haleth and this can be saved with some work. Archrogue (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please see my analysis of the sources above, sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable character. The issue here is that this article (just like 99% of all other articles on comic book characters) is terrible.★Trekker (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a great argument. You need to tell us "why" he is notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer. Please remember AFD is not a vote. No policy based arguments have been presented, and extra sources at that moment, per my review above, fail our requirements (first link doesn't even mention the subject, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Your opinion is noted but not accepted. Policies have been cited by other editors. I am not sure if it is appropriate for you as the nominator (unless there's a supporting policy or guideline which I am unaware of), to essentially instruct other editors on how they should be closing this AfD, especially when you are presenting your sentences in a passive aggressive, WP:BLUDGEON manner towards others in this discussion when the emergent consensus does not seem to be going your way. Haleth (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This is not the first time I've seen similar behaviour.★Trekker (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per the suggested target above by Haleth. I don't think there are enough sources to expand the article to a good state, but there probably are for the list article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Hellblazer character article per Haleth. I agree there is not quite enough to keep the article. Merging is the best option here. Rhino131 (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.