Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastique (comics)


 * 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. Although several of the sources provided are just passing mentions or lack the independent editorial oversight needed to meet GNG, some of the recently added ones do provide the kind of in-depth coverage that supports the consensus to Keep.  JGHowes   talk  00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Plastique (comics)

 * – ( 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 and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with the following rationale "Stop prodding AND AFDing so many related content simultaneously. Nobody can improve content with this kind of persistence to delete everything.". Sigh. Let's try to stay civil, shall we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:48, 19 November 2020 (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  08:48, 19 November 2020 (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  08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination's assertions seem false as the topic already cites satisfactory sources such as The Encyclopedia of Supervillains and DC Comics Encyclopedia which demonstrate the encyclopedic nature of the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The coverage of those half-in=universe 'encyclopedias' is mostly a plot summary anyway. Did you see any analysis in them? If so, indulge us and quote it, if you'd be so kind. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In this current discussion, some contend that quoting sources would be a copyright violation.  And that even listing links to sources is excessive.  Darkknight2149 has bravely risked sanction by doing so and I am content with their findings.  See also WP:BEFORE.  Andrew🐉(talk) 15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha. Nobody, there or here, is claiming that a reasonable amount of WP:QUOTE is a problem. You can quote a few sentences from a source. I have done so on many an occasion. If you are really terrified of the sanctions, I give you permission to email the relevant quotes to me, and I'll repost them here myself taking the responsibility and "bravely risking sanctions". And if you decide not to do this, than I stand by my claim that the sources contain no in-depth discussion of the subject, and particularly, no analysis, and further, I have to question whether you even read them, or are you just giving us WP:GOOGLEHITS? Ągain, please prove me wrong and put a sock in my mouth by providing quotes from the sources you found which show existence of an in-depth, non-plot summary analysis. The ball is in your court. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting a few sentences isn't going to do anything. You, TTN, and a couple of others have a habit of claiming that every source is "all plot" or a "passing mention", even when that's explicitly not the case and nearly everyone else in the discussion is voting Keep. Articles for deletion/Danger Room, Articles for deletion/Intergang, and Articles for deletion/Godspeed (character) are three of the many examples of this.
 * Even below, bizarrely claimed the coverage provided is all "terriary and primary fancruft sources", which is a factually nonsensical claim. You both say that it's all trivial mentions with no critical analysis, even though this is nothing but critical commentary on two different iterations of the character, this is significant coverage (discussing the character's history and how they were adapted for the TV show), this source also goes over the character's history and development, this source discusses the differences in iterations and the character's previous live action appearances, this (the only primary source in the lot) also provides some commentary, this discusses the difference between iterations, and this source has 2-3 whole paragraphs of critical commentary.
 * If you think the sources are insufficient, you guys (as a generalised group) should start using more honest arguments than the usual "all plot = any plot", "everything is a trivial mention", "reputable third party reliable news sources are actually primary sources or Fancruft™ because I said so", ETC. For example, if you think it's difficult to build an article with the coverage provided, then just say that. If you are simply unfamiliar with the sources cited, there's no shame in not voting or opening an inquiry at WP:RSN either.  Dark knight  2149  16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Upon a quick search, I was able to find coverage and critical commentary on the character.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/48229-who-is-plastique-bette-sans-souci-the-flash-is-giving-the-dc-villain-a-heroic-makeover

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a586088/the-flash-to-introduce-dc-comics-character-plastique/

https://www.eonline.com/news/564179/the-flash-casting-scoop-it-s-time-to-meet-plastique

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/heres-wholl-be-playing-dc-character-plastique-s1-cws-flash

https://cwtampa.cbslocal.com/2014/08/05/the-flash-plastique-casting-news/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/cws-flash-adds-rakes-kelly-frye-supervillainess-plastique-222500451.html

https://tv.avclub.com/the-flash-plastique-1798181883

https://www.cbr.com/smallville-arrowverse-characters/4/

 Dark knight  2149  14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Critical commentary, huh. Let me take a look.
 * - seriously? That's your idea of critical commentary? That's plot summary in three sentences (and that's stretching it, as not the entirety of those three sentences are about her). Well, we are off to a good start...
 * That's better as it is about her (not that it is overly long), but it is just a plot summary with a mention she appeared in a single TV episode.
 * That's identical to the first source, the article is not about her, and it just summarizes plot involving her with mentions of her name in 3 sentences...
 * That's even worse, her name appears in a single sentence, that's the very definition of trivial, in passing coverage per GNG.
 * Sorry, I stop here. If you want me to treat you seriously, please stop WP:GOOGLEHITS strategy, and weed out such crappy sources that certainly DO NOT contribute anything to GNG requirement. I don't have time nor will to see if any other links are better, but I am quite disappointed you'd waste mine and others time with this strategy. I expected better. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Shit, some of these were sources for Wade Eiling that got mixed in. Removed.  Dark knight  2149  16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Summary-only descriptions of works" WP:NOTPLOT is WP:WWIN. Article sources do not meet WP:GNG or WP:FICTION, they are terriary and primary, not secondary WP:IS WP:RS sources with WP:SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would establish notability. Sources listed about are either fancruft, promotional, or mentions, neither meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is a plot summary, WP:OR / WP:SNYTH, nothing properly sourced for a merge.  // Timothy ::  talk  15:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the sources above except the CW source are secondary and absolutely none of them are ALLPLOT. News articles and critical analysis are not "fancruft" or "promotional" either. Thank you for showing that you didn't check any of them before voting.  Dark knight  2149  16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources above, which in my opinion are enough to pass GNG because they contain real world information about the character. Also, and I recognize this is not based in policy, but I think that when comic characters are adapted for other media- in this case multiple television shows- that also speaks to notability. Plenty of characters have simply appeared in a few comic issues and were never heard from again. Rhino131 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read them? Please see my analysis of the first four above, which are bad, weak, bad, abysmally bad. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did indeed read them, and they are enough to pass my admittedly lower standards for sources. But I see no reason not to take users seriously who have lower standards than you. That is how we become uncivil and argue with each other. Simply disagree, and move on. Rhino131 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure if this is the best place, but since it was mentioned:
 * I think staying civil would befit us all. Working in Wikipedia can be so much fun, and a harsh tone can greatly dimish that.
 * I think past experiences with comic characters have shown that deletions in this field are practically never uncontroversial. So in my opinion, if any secondary sources can be found in an article or a WP:BEFORE search, a WP:PROD does not seem appropriate. I expect going directly to AfD, if applicable, would save both sides one step of irritation.
 * AfDs about fictional subjects so far have had results spanning the whole range from keep to delete. So while checking articles about all kinds of fictional subjects with regard to WP:GNG is a valid project, a keep result is always a possibility. So wouldn't it be best for Wikipedia, if interested editors had enough time to check if appropriate secondary sources can be found? Would you perhaps consider slowing down with the deletion nominations (at least within each genre), to allow for that? Daranios (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with above. These AFDs usually generate a good amount of discussion, sometimes a lot of discussion, and so even if the article is deleted it is hardly uncontested. Many of these characters nominated have been around for decades and are notable in-universe, so it is not unreasonable to think sources may exist to pass Wikipedia's guidelines, or that users would want the opportunity to look for sources, which often happens in these AFDs. I don't believe PROD is warranted for the majority of these articles. Certainly it sometimes is, but I agree it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to err on the side of AFD, or tag it for lacking sources. Rhino131 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fully support civil discussions, and I don't mind being proven wrong - it's not like I am counting my 'kills' (or 'saves', I do vote keep too :>), and further, a fixed article is a win for everyone. That said, if my BEFORE doesn't find anything substantial, and the article lacks even a rudimentary reception/significance and is all plot, I think a prod is uncontroversial. If someone wants to deprod it, they are welcome to that, but again, my experience and logs shows that a portion of comic prods, maybe half or a third at least, are uncontroversial (nobody disputes them), and I consider that a major saving of everyone's time. (And since I also estimate that out of the other half or so that end up here, delete/redirect (which is the same IMHO) is the outcome for 3/4 or so, I think there is a clear support for cleaning fancruft in this area). And the fact that some articles are saved and I am proven wrong is all good, nobody's perfects, and that's why Wikipedia work. Some people write, some people clean, some people rescue, it's all good, no need to get too frustrated. Just AGF and try to follow best practices - like when deproding, provide some sources or arguments, please (that can save us some of the unnecessary AfDs). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that when deciding whether to PROD, take into account the amount of in-universe information and the size of the "in other media" section. I'm not saying that would mean anything for notability, but it Would indicate the character has some prominence in-universe, and therefore is more likely to be recognized by one or more users who would contest the article's deletion. Something like Trigon (comics), which was prodded and quickly deprodded, is a good example. Just the size of the article would tell you deletion would not be uncontroversial, regardless of whether it is ultimately notable. In cases like that (which I'm sure would be a minority), AFD would be a better option. As we all know many Wikipedia users are comic fans, and it just makes sense they would want to try to save articles if they can. Rhino131 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Given that more people seem to complain about too many PRODs compared to too many AfDs, I guess it makes some sense to send things here more often directly, and your criteria make some sense. That said, sometimes long fancruft is just that, so I think the length of the in other media is a better indicator than the length of the in-universe sectioon. --04:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In-universe information can give a good sense of how long a character has existed in the comics and how prominent. If the character only appeared in one story and then disappeared, likely not notable. If the character has existed in the comics for decades, there is likely a reason for that which may lead to sources. But I don't disagree that even for notable characters, the plot information can often be trimmed. Rhino131 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think about slowing down part (within one genre or at least franchise) to give the "rescuers" enough time to thoroughly look for sources? Daranios (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Majority of the links above range from a couple sentences of basic plot summary to a couple paragraphs of plot summary. They're not saying anything relevant. They're mostly just confirming the character exists and giving a little bit of background on her. It's basically just trying to assert inherited notability due to the popularity of the show/DC TV franchises. There is nothing from which to build even a meager article, so this fails WP:GNG without a doubt. TTN (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: When a comics character appears in live-action movies and TV, it usually gets some coverage, including casting and reviews. Keep per above examples. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The character has received sufficient significant coverage, in my view, which warrants a standalone article, although there is certainly room for improvement with the citation of reliable sources. Haleth (talk) 01:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plot summary alone is not significant coverage, per WP:NOTPLOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are secondary sources about the character, which have also have at least some real-world information. Daranios (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you link to those good sources, and quote the real-world information, you mention? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer. Please consider the quality of arguments per NOTAVOTE. We started with the claim there are no good sources. Sources have been presented as a rebuttal, fair enough. The sources have been then criticized for being insufficient (passing mentions/unreliable/etc.). This has been ignored, and followed by boilerplate votes which do not present any new critique and just assert notability. Ignoring valid critique with claims WP:ITSNOTABLE is hardly best practice. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not say that the criticisms of the sources have been ignored; they have simply not been agreed with. Certain users think there is enough to pass GNG and so have said keep. They are not required to agree with you. Regardless, I'm sure the closer will be able to consider the quality of the arguments without you telling them to. If the arguments are weak it will be apparent to the closer and that's fine. Rhino131 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have started a Reception section to show that there is, in contrast to Piotrus' analysis, at least some evaluation rather than pure plot-summary information in the listed and other sources. It should not be surprising that this comes late in the deletion discussion: This is one of many recent deletion nominations within this genre, delivered with high frequency, which hardly allow for an appropriately thorough search for/through the sources. Daranios (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reception section is a badly needed step in the right direction, but the sources are still passing mentions (aside of plot summaries), as can be seen in how short it is. And let's face it - there is little to do to make it longer. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As of the current version of the article, source #1 is a news article saying that the character has been cast with no particular commentary. The cited quote is not significant commentary in any way whatsoever. #2 is an episode review that doesn't focus on any actual analysis of the character. #3 is a trash CBR listicle that should never even be used on Wikipedia. #4 seems to not be working. The current information is simply fluff meant to look good, which is the problem with much of the defense in fiction AfDs. Instead of simply trying to draft the article or work on the parent article, we get these half-hearted attempts at "saving" them. TTN (talk) 02:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As for "how short it is": I said I have started the section. I have a bit more to add. I don't really expect it will satisfy you, but how about giving it more time and discuss the details afterwards?
 * I made a mistake in link #4. Thanks for the tip, I have changed it. I hope it works now. Daranios (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Allright, that's all I wanted to do as Reception section at this point. I don't say it's epic in either size or insight, but it's a paragraph and it's not "all plot-summary". And what do we need for an article? There should be more than "half a paragraph" or "a few sentences", and that's the case if we do some more sourcing on the other sections. And taking the publication history/TV appearances with who portrayed the character together with the reception, it's not WP:ALLPLOT. Former #1 is needed to give context to the next sentence; I have also added another rating part in there. #2: How is "the character's portrayal in x is more nuanced than in y", etc. plot-summary and not about the character? #3 Why should a "listicle" not be used? And in general, by no means do I say this article is in perfect shape. But how is deleting the current article (rather than further improving) a gain for Wikipedia? Its existence also does not prevent anyone from improving any parent article. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're basically taking extremely minute sentences and giving them vastly more weight than they deserve. These are not articles about the character. They are articles about the shows in which they discuss every trivial addition to each show and give basic context for the non-comic reader, and the context from those is extremely weak. There are certainly comic and pop culture-based articles that do provide actual commentary, but these are not that. This is fluff that looks nice on a surface level when prettied up for the article, but then reveals itself to be hollow when looking at the sources.
 * CBR and Screenrant release some twenty to forty listicles every single day. They have no quality control or vetting. Their level of quality is WatchMojo level trash pumped out for clicks. I think their news articles are generally fine for verification, but their lists are something that should never infect a single article. Top X lists are generally seen as low quality regardless, but those two sites in particular take it to a whole other level of terrible.
 * If the quality of sources is so low that one needs to scrape the ground underneath the bottom of the barrel to find anything even slightly relevant, someone has lost the plot. It's no longer about improving the article. It's just about one-upping the "other side" regardless of the outcome. Then the article just gets nominated again in a few years when it actually has seen no improvement. All that wasted effort could be spent fixing a character list entry or the main article. TTN (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are the sources wrong? Is the content incorrectly cited? If not, I don't see why they should not be used. Is the article now worse than before? If it's about improving the parent article, why not either vote merge or put in effort there? Daranios (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They add nothing to the article, so they shouldn't be used. Sources that fail to meet the qualification of significant coverage are irrelevant to the topic. "She has flirted with good on occasion" and "a classic DC villainess" are not commentary. They're minor little quips with zero thought put into them. These little three paragraph news articles are not providing anything significant. You don't need an entire chapter of a book on the character, but you at least need something a few steps above that. Merging is only useful if the article to be merged has something worth merging, like in the case of a relatively minor character only having a single suitable source. This is not at all such a case. TTN (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To give an example, it's like if we had made an article on Minecraft Steve due to the character's inclusion in Super Smash Bros. That was flatly turned down due to being not extensive enough, despite the wealth of news articles covering the addition. I'm sure you could take the same strategy of cherry picking very specific descriptions from those various articles, but it would be trivial coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just add that CBR-and-like listicles have been declared unreliable for pretty much everything here. Granntted, the discussion was short, but it was hardly hidden, and it was unanimous. No prejudice if anyone wants to restart it at RSN. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very interesting. To a few details: "She has flirted with good on occasion" is, as I said, just the necessary context for the next sentence. If a character is considered by a secondary source to be a minor character (like Doctor Spectro) or "a classic character" to me is indeed an evaluation, in this case a positive one. In contrast to Steve (Minecraft), opinions on this article differ. Also in contrast to that one, we have the coverage in the different comics encyclopedias in addition to the news articles, and we have the whole publication history/appearances in different media sections, which can be sourced both by books and news articles. In addition to the "listicle" (which does at least a bit more than give "a brief description of why stuff is on the list"), two other news articles come to similar conclusions about the topic. Putting them together, I don't think I have blown that out of proportion.
 * I would still be interested in how deleting this article is supposed to improve any "parent article", and which one that might be.
 * Aside from that, not wanting to continue this endlessly, I guess we can agree to disagree. I am waiting on which opinion the closer will form with some anticipation. Daranios (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The more divided the article structure, the more attention is split between them. If you have a character of dubious notability or simply no notability, it's a waste of time and effort trying to pretty up one rotting branch of the tree when the base of the tree is completely neglected. Even in the case someone providing a couple decent sources, it's generally better to include those in a main article (whether the first appearance of the character or a character list) rather than some pointless permastub, but the general trend of these AfDs that lean more towards keep/no consensus always seems to leave a half-baked mess of an article. It's especially weird when they then sit for another five years only to be nominated again and then deleted. I've seen this so many times that it's just bizarre to me. I guess there's not much point in further discussing the sources other than I simply cannot evaluate them as significant coverage in any way. TTN (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let this page stay. She has been a notable Suicide Squad character. I also support the suggestions that were made by, , , , and . --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - sourcing is not in-depth enough to show that it passes WP:GNG, unless there is a suitable redirect target.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 23:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Some significant additions have been made to the article in the past 2-3 days, and I hope some reviewers may take another look. To me, there is enough referenced support to keep. While I do not agree with how the de-PRODer put the comment made, I do agree that a whole set of related articles is undergoing AfD, and I would much prefer to keep the entirety of the set of articles, which, as a whole, provide what I consider to be encyclopedic knowledge worth reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concertmusic (talk • contribs)


 * 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.