Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock of Eternity


 * 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. There is definitely no consensus to delete this but there also is not consensus that this is notable. It's possible that with more discussion a merge consensus could emerge (or not) but that does not need to happen at AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Rock of Eternity

 * – ( 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 "I would think this is notable too. You are reaching!". I am not sure what I am reaching, but the article doesn't reach the standards outlined in GNG/NFICTION, being nothing but a plot summary/list of works this setting appeared in. It's pure WP:FANCRUFT, with no analysis/reception and like. It's high time we reached for a broom and cleaned such unencyclopedic stuff. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:18, 11 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  08:18, 11 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  08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Koniecznyk aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep a major location for Captain Marvel. Mostly the Fortress of Solitude of Superman before the Fortress even existed. Similar to like Fortress of Solitude or Batcave. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability (fiction) and WP:FANCRUFT are essays and so "have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community ". The nomination's broom rhetoric is an argument to avoid.  There are obvious alternatives to deletion and that's policy . Andrew🐉(talk) 18:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge With Shazam (wizard) or Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Not notable outside of its connection to Shazam, and is a minor plot element.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DCeased used it without connected to Shazam. Shows how much you know. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the most obvious target. Whether it was used at times without connection is irrelevant, as the site is not claiming to be an all-encompassing comic book compendium. It is a general knowledge encyclopedia and generally speaking, Shazam is who uses it most.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So! A huge misdirection on the argument if it’s notable or not. To loosely quote Minerva McGonagall why is always you three that has to be on the same AFD making always the same vote? Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - "Major" is subjective. The topic lacks sources to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability is subjective. There is many references of sources namedrop it because is still used in comics and was also used in the Shazam film. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is subjective. Notability is not. This has "notability" within the comics-sphere. It does not have notability unless someone produces enough reliable sources of which the community deems sufficient. TTN (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I already told you it had many references in media, possibly in books too but I know you will brush them off because again...is is subjective. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Go look up what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. You have a fundamental misunderstanding on how this site works. TTN (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hollywood Reporter, Comic Book Resources, Screen Rant, Thrillist,Den of Geek, Cinema Blend, comicbook.com and Yahoo News etc. not reliable? Those are the sources I talk about. Jhenderson  7 7 7  14:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you should start inserting the sources into the article to improve it. Haleth (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I dispute it is major or significant. I have heard of Batcave and Fortress of Solitude, but not of this one. Anyway, we need sources that say it is major, and none have been given here so far. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because you haven’t heard of it. Doesn’t mean it isn’t notable. Invalid argument. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And how is your argument, which seemingly boils down to "I've heard of it", any better Jhenderson777? GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally not my argument. Don’t put words in my mouth. Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - You started it by using a straw man argument and placing words in my mouth. Turning the tables is not something you enjoy, I suppose? Anyway, reading your comments, please mind WP:CIV and WP:NPA, thanks. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge with Shazam (wizard). The two are linked, and I think it make sense to combine the two topics. Rhino131 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Connected but not always tied in. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but this article badly needs better sourcing asap. No prejudice towards another AfD or even a bold merge if no improvements are made soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haleth (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. It is a known headquarters of Captain Marvel. Plus,, , and were right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete reviewing the sources, there's nothing to say here that isn't a WP:PLOT recap, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. There isn't enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:GNG. I do see people baldly asserting there are sources, but I don't see them. If this improves maybe a merge to Captain Marvel makes sense. Jontesta (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Is a a common recurring mention of Mister Mind being imprisoned in the talked about location in the post-credit scene of Shazam! too much of an indirect mention. I see a lot but nothing I can think of to help improve yet. I also see DCeased references like this incident. Jhenderson 7 7 7  22:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment 2: Here are two non indirect mentions from same author though. here and here Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Some more digs. Here, here, here and here. The google results in news seem to be too overcrowded for people to be not sure that it isn’t generally notable just yet. Jhenderson  7 7 7  23:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You need development information, reception information, analysis of cultural impact, etc per WP:WAF and "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. What you've posted are singular mentions in the context of describing plot and some basically pop-culture tabloid level speculation. You have one link that literally mentions the topic one single time. TTN (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WAF describes a manual of style for such articles. Not complying with the prescribed manual of style is not a rationale for deletion or redirection in itself. An AfD discussion is not a cleanup exercise. WP:SIGCOV does not mandate or prescribe the exact criteria for the type of information required, only that there is "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". You might want to take your own advice on understanding what this website is about. Haleth (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPLOT dictates that an article on fiction cannot be mere plot summary. WP:WAF is basically a means of applying that. If the fictional topic fails the standards set by WAF and potential improvement of the article has not been established to be possible, it fails NOTPLOT by default. If a reliable source does not provide real world information for a topic, it cannot help meet the standards of WAF, which makes it fundamentally useless to fulfilling NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wp:NOTPLOT is unfindable in my end. Just a heads up. Jhenderson  7 7 7  01:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * TTN: "in addition" and "should" are the keywords I took from the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy which the WP:NOTPLOT link is directed to, I think your interpretation on such an instance is "must" based on your comments. My vote for keep is contingent on the assumption that the article will be rewritten to a better standard which conforms to the MOS with time of the essence, and I am not opposed to it being deleted altogether in a second AfD if it survives this one if no serious improvements are made. Here is one source which I am surprised that no one on this thread have mentioned. This is what turned up after 30 seconds of a google book search and skim-read by me, where the original creator of Captain Marvel C.C. Beck discussed developmental info about Rock of Eternity in the book Jeff Smith: Conversations. This is one example of the real world information you are asking for. As per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not the state of the article's sourcing. Although, this IP is a victim of Recentism as it dates back to the 1940's, where it hit its peak in popularity and recognizability way before the internet even exists. I have good reason to believe that many more sources like these exist, but are mostly from previous generations and available in print-only. |@Jhenderson777, sources like these are more helpful to demonstrate notability then passing or trivial mentions. Haleth (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia absolutely cannot have a plot-summary only article. Sources that do not advance a fictional work or element towards that goal are useless because a source interchangeable with a primary source is useless in the scope of that particular article, even if considered a reliable source. That is the crux of the argument against Jhenderson777, who seems to just toss any source he's able to find into the wind hoping some stick. He confuses general notability with how Wikipedia defines notability, which then seems to cause him anger when people dismiss what he brings up. As far as I can see, Jeff Smith is an author on the work he's describing, so his words are primary and have no use in meeting WP:GNG. Development information is good and should be added to whichever work he's referencing, but cultural impact and reception from independent parties are what is necessary for fictional elements in particular. While I understand the argument on print sources, there has to be some good faith assurance that they likely exist before one can rely on them. The nebulous idea that they may exist has interrupted too many AfDs. TTN (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn’t ask for your input. I am well aware of both things so please just stick a fork in it for once about source evaluations. You are getting on my nerves. It has cultural impact. I promise you that. Regardless if I found it or not. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also that is not what your pointed guideline is saying. You are making your own rules as you go along. Keep in mind “it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.” Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I am getting to the point of being uncivil. I am going to cool off. Just not having good days for now. Though in all seriousness I read all through Wp:GNG and it is not being as strict as you claim it is. The things you say it needs is not necessarily required. Notability is not temporary either. This fictional location has been around a long time to have various sources used to not be around any more. Jhenderson  7 7 7  13:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look Jhenderson777, there is no reason for being soooo upset about it. This is how Wikipedia works; people argue and differ all the time. Good choice you made to cool off a bit; while doing that, perhaps look for some sources that would support this article's notability. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dude I am not upset anymore. That is an older comment.But yeah cooling off is a good choice.  Jhenderson  7 7 7  12:36, 19 November 2020 (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.