Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Blot


 * 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 redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip). Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Phantom Blot

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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. All I see in sources - including cited ones like the The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History - are mentions in passing, generally in plot summaries of more notable shorts and like; I couldn't even find a single sentence, not to mention a paragraph about him anywhere. Even the modern clickbait sites like CBR don't have much: press-release like and tiny WP:INTERVIEW. The best I found is this which compares him to Thanos, but I don't think that's enough. Let's discuss - maybe someone can dig up something else, but please, let's avoid plot summaries and illustrated children books this time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:44, 19 April 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  03:44, 19 April 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  03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to the appropriate section of Mickey Mouse (comic strip). It's covered in some detail there, and could be expanded with coverage from [The Comic Book Book], which devoted almost a whole chapter to the story and its uncredited artist. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Right. I was a bit surprised we don't have an article on the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot. That particular story/comic strip may be notable (I am not 100% sure but it does appear to have some coverage out there). If this article were to be created, it would make for an even better redirect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Argento Surfer and nominator. I did find this io9 source that ranked him in a list of best genre villain roles in 2017 or something, but other only coverage is mentions in coverage primarily about series and shorts. Disappointing as he's an interesting villain. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment- I have found two separate sources, although I need them to be looked at to see if they are reliable. This one and this one specifically. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * CBR.com is not reliable, and cartoonresearch.com looks like a self-published blog posting screenshots and text snippets of material it doesn't own. Neither establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * CBR is considered generally reliable for comic information (not that I would agree with assessment if we re-evaluated consensus today). Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I brought CBR a while ago at RSN, and their lists, at the very least, are considered low quality, see here. As for their more general articles, I'd call them reliable, but many of them have very little non-plot summary - they do vary, however, I've seen some that are quite solid, and some that are pure clickbait that might as well be script generated. I did actually find and link that particular CBR article in my op, and I do think it is the best coverage we have - and it is just not enough, all it has outside plot summary is a few sentences about said comparison. That said, this source is a 'good start' - but if this is all, then we don't have enough to save this. As for the other source, even before looking at the publisher (blog?), it is about the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot strip which as I mentioned above may be notable on its own - but we should not conflate the two entities (the character and the strip where said character debuted and which includes a mention of the character in the name). "Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot" =/= "Phantom Blot". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we had a formal discussion on it, I think the case of CBR would be too nuanced to form a clear consensus. The quality since their sale has fallen dramatically, but some columns (like Brian Cronin's stuff) is still solid. Other stuff is accurate but sometimes it's borderline indiscriminate in their effort to hit their "5 times (and 5 times not)" quota. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article can either be expanded with further sources, or it can be reworked and renamed/moved into Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot as suggested by other editors. Either way, both outcomes are in the spirit of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There is no established consensus that CBR is unreliable (or reliable). There is however, consensus that its sister site, Screen Rant which operates in a very similar manner or format as CBR following its acquisition by the same parent company in 2016, is "marginally reliable" following a RfC which received substantial participation. In other words Screen Rant (which is more film/TV/video game focused) is reliable enough for entertainment-related topics such as fictional characters, but inappropriate for use in BLP articles, and I imagine a consensus for CBR (which is more comics focused) would be the same in the event that it is also subjected to a RfC. Haleth (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The idea of rewriting this into Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot (under the assumption that comic is notable, which is possible but has not been proven yet here) would make some sense - if there was any usable content in the article. But it's 99.9% plot summary fancruft, and Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot is mentioned in a single sentence. There is nothing to rescue here, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Topic of the character lacks sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. If the comic itself is actually notable, the content in the article on the comic does not amount to much, so I don't think it'd be proper to simply rework the topic as it stands. It's basically a TNT case with maybe justification for a light merge of a paragraph should anyone find sufficient sourcing for the comic to meet GNG. TTN (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣<b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 04:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Apart from what's said above, notice that there are articles about the character in 18 other language Wikipedias including major languages like French and Italian. These appear to be substantial and have sources in those languages too.  As the character goes back over 70 years and Disney has been a big deal in many countries, there is clearly international notability.  It would be absurd to delete the character in its mother tongue.  Our policies such as WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Undecided per Andrew Davidson. I've looked for sources and maybe found some, but Google won't let me see enough of it to determine how deep they are: Comics through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas (2014), The Comic-book Book (1974), The Slings & Arrows Comic Guide (2003), Dizionoir del fumetto (2008), The TOON Treasury of Classic Children's Comics (2009) and Riverside Quarterly, Volume 5, Issue 2 - Volume 6, Issue 2 (1971). Also (minor I guess) mentions in reviews of Epic Mickey from Eurogamer Benelux and Inside Gamer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:35, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you cannot look inside, then we are dealing with nothing but WP:GOOGLEHITS I am afraid. In fact, I can see page 407 of your first source, and it is clearly a mention in passing, and crucually, not of the character, but of the comic strip they appear in "...the first substantive fulllength Mickey-themed comic book, 1941's Mickey Mouse vs. the Phantom Blot from George Delacorte's... ...". This also reminds us that GOOGLEHITS is particularly bad in cases where the subject's name is also a part of something else (in this case, the strip). Most if not all of your google-hits finds are likely relevant to the topic of the comic strip - which is not what we are discussing here. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , those books really do exists. What little Google does show me indicates those sources are possibly usable. Sources don't have to be publicly accessible to be used on Wikipedia. For that first result, I figured that there might be more on page 408 which is unavailable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I never said the books don't exist. What I said is that there is no evidence the sources cited contain WP:SIGCOV and we cannot assume this is the case. Per WP:BURDEN, you have to find clear evidence of such coverage. In either case I was able to access page 408 and it does not seem to discuss the character (or the comic strip) at all: . I don't see what would make you think that the next page would do so, particularly given that while the comic strip may be notable, there is nothing here to suggest the source discussed the character. Please avoid confusing those two entities, and note that this AfD is not about the comic strip (which does not have the article yet but as I noted myself may be notable), but the fictional character (which does and is not). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I never knew you could do that! That will come in handy in the future. I've checked all Wikipedia articles in other languages and only found two possibly interesting links, both on frwiki: DuckTales: The Members of FOWL, Explained and DuckTales Turns Phantom Blot Into Disney's... Thanos?!, both from CBR.com. Is CBR a RS? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am glad you found my linking to GBooks usesful (I assume that's what you are referring to). You may also want to re-read the discussion above - I already linked the CBR source in my opening post. Likewise, the reliability of CBR has also been touched upon by several editors above. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, that's I meant. Handy to access off-limits pages. Though I suspect it won't always work, I remember times when a Google Books result linked directly to a page number that was off-limits. I appear to have overlooked part of the discussion. wasn't mentioned before. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect — I see no evidence this meets WP:Notability. Existence in other Wikipedias is only evidence that most of them are also hard at work dealing with fancruft. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep or more likely Redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip) or Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot if that's notable and an article is created for it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:36, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip). I can certainly see the potential of an article on the actual comic of Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot, but as mentioned above, there is really not much useful in this article currently that could be used in such a rework.  While the current article looks like it has a number of references, most of them do not appear to be from reliable sources.  Redirecting to the correct section of the article on the Mickey Mouse comics would currently be the most appropriate target, and if an article on the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot comic itself is developed, the redirect can be changed accordingly.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mickey Mouse (comic strip): should/could be expanded over there CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously a notable character for having been one of Mickey Mouse's main adversaries for many decades. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:ITSNOTABLE. Do you even have a source that he was "one of Mickey Mouse's main adversaries for many decades"? (And even if it is the case, which part of GNG would that even meet?) <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: the article needs to be improved with the addition of more sources, but the character has been discussed in many places, as he is Mickey's second most famous enemy beside Pete. Ever since he was introduced in 1939 the character has appeared in 845 stories, including famous ones, and new stories about him are produced every year. In some countries with a strong tradition of Disney comics he has long been part of popular culture: for example, in this scene from one of the highest-grossing movies in Italy, a character casually addresses another character who is a thief by saying "Senti, Macchia Nera" ("Listen, Phantom Blot"). Anyway, in case he is going to be redirected it would be better to redirect him to Mickey Mouse universe rather than Mickey Mouse (comic strip), since only 4 stories out of 845 are part of said strip. --Newblackwhite (talk) 08:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Lists of media appearances without reliable sources to provide necessary context are worthless in establishing notability. It doesn't matter if the character has appeared in ten thousand pieces of media. If for some reason nobody has critically talked about the character itself, it simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. There are plenty of other places on the internet to catalogue such information. TTN (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that, I only mentioned that number to give a little context, but the main reason I think the character deserves an article is that he has been discussed in many sources. When I have more free time I plan to locate these sources and improve the article, assuming it won't have been deleted by then. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , "he has been discussed in many sources"? Which sources? Could you link them? Some people seem to confuse mentions of a strip he appears in (that is also named after him) with the fictional character; those are not the same entities. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was mainly thinking of newspaper articles which talk about the character, but as I said it may be a while before I can find the time to collect them and review them one by one. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , If you find any, please link them, nobody was able to find anything outside the two articles on CBR; everything else discusses the comic strip, not the character. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per the reasons cited above. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , WP:KEEPPER... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.