Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riverdale (Archie 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   no consensus. The clearly policy based argument is to delete due to issues with GNG & OR but I'm going to go with an apparant improvement and give this some space for further work Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Riverdale (Archie Comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:BKD and WP:MOSFICT, there should not be articles about fictional elements unless they meet the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). I can't find significant coverage of this fictional town in reliable independent sources, despite the notability of the comics it has appeared in. Claritas § 12:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — Cliff smith  talk  16:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The nominator is spot-on. The article itself is all original research. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep If this were just any fictional setting, I'd agree with the nom. However, this is a very central element to the Archie series.  I agree, though--this article needs work. Blueboy96 15:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but per WP:MOSFICT and WP:BKD, significant coverage in reliable independent sources is needed, which I'm just not seeing through my favourite search engine. Claritas § 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:BKD has been widely judged to lack consensus. Any particular reason you keep restating it essentially unchanged? Jclemens (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, all Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be respected as reflecting global consensus, and the fact that you and ten editors at WP:Deletion Review disagree with a literal interpretation of the policy does not mean that it "lacks consensus". If there really is a consensus against it, bring it up at the village pump or at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books). Claritas § 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:BKD expressly discusses fictional elements from single books: this is confirmed by its wording, explanation, and all of the examples given. It has no application to fictional elements that are from multiple works of fiction, as is the case here.  This makes sense because the issues of how best to summarize the content and at what level of detail are completely different.  postdlf (talk) 00:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep since Riverdale High School has already been redirected/merged here. Consider renaming to List of Archie Comics locations per similar precedents. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was actually deleted per Articles for deletion/Riverdale High School (comics), and the redirect was an independent editorial decision. Claritas § 22:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. The consensus on that was an overwhelming support for a redirect, which is not the same as a deletion (i.e., the history survives).  The only editorial decision was as to the redirect target, since various suggestions had been made as to where it should be redirected.  Mandsford 15:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're entirely right, I'm confusing this with another AFD debate. Claritas § 18:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (due to updates) found sources and added them. You kind of have to dig. But I was able to WP:verifynotability by verifying about how the location was inspired and how it reminded U.S. soldiers of home during WW2. This was a quick search and I'm convinced there is much more out there. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is " Charles Phillips, John L. Goldwater. Archie: his first 50 years." an independent source ? Can you provide the extracts cited in some form ? I trust that it really is significant coverage, but I'd like to be certain (before changing my !vote). Claritas § 22:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the extensive use of Archie images, it was probably licensed/authorized, but it nevertheless appears to be a true secondary source&mdash;about the comics rather than just more comics itself. Its author is not one of the comics' creators, and its publisher is not Archie Comics.  postdlf (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I wondered if you'd put this up for deletion. I was wondering if you had a criteria based on NOTE, or just wanted to willy nilly delete archie related articles.  I think I have my answer.  I don't want to do the work, but I can assure you this is notable.  A lot of those will not be independant, or non-trivial, but out of the 2000+ Gnews and 2000+ Gbooks hits.  There are entire independant books on the Archie series.  I'm not sure why, but independant books on comics almost never have more than a snippet view in Gbooks.  It would be similar to deleting Gotham City (ie. deleting something that has tons RSs because they aren't in the article). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of those are reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage. Fictional elements aren't deemed notable by the amount of in-universe coverage they have received in non-indepnedent sources, but by significant real-world coverage, which just isn't there. Also, read WP:GHITS. Claritas § 18:07, 7 July 2010 (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.