Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senyaka


 * 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Going with the merges here. (p.s. Keep it civil, folks.) Missvain (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Senyaka

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources, only some junk listicles. TTN (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Herostratus below, or Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. BOZ (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, article meets WP:GNG pretty handily. Here is an article with extensive coverage. Here is an article with extensive coverage. Here is an article with extensive coverage. Here is a paragraph.


 * Additionally there are a short mentions, but which may provide an additional fact or two,. Then, going into books, there is The Marvel Encyclopedia, The Marvel Book, Ultimate Marvel, Marvel Universe, History of the Marvel Universe, maybe others. I don't have these books, but you'd have to assume that there's some coverage in some of them; it'd be pretty extraordinary if there wasn't. Here and here you've got articles with extensive coverage from Sri Lanka, which extends coverage internationally (the entity is Sri Lankan). The Grand Comics Database includes the entity; these are just lists I think but does list the writers and artists if not more. There's a toy(s) of the entity and card game cards, which doesn't really jibe with the subject being a very obscure nonentity. Here is wiki article with extensive coverage. Not suggesting it's usable, but as matter of notability (I mean in real life) it is further marker of general specialist and/or public interest in the entity sufficient that people are writing about it.


 * Some of the sources are reliable in and of themselves. Grand Comics Database has a fact-checking operation it looks like and an error-reporting one too. We have a citing template Grand Comics Database which why would we have that if it wasn't considered reliable. Some of the others look OK too, although vetting the reliably of sources is complicated and and is really hard if you don't have details on their fact-checking operation is, and it's something that could be looked at in more detail. But if nobody has the interest in doing that: these look like acceptable refs.


 * Our guidelines as written don't require the sources establishing notability to be themselves notable I think, just reliable. However, it's sensible to consider that. So we know that Grand Comics Database has an article here, and so does Comic Book Resources. If they were printing their stuff with spirit masters they probably wouldn't. Comic Vine doesn't have an article, but it has a section in one. They seem to be a presence on the field, are able to support a small staff, and were bought by ViacomCBS recently which I don't think ViacomCBS buys up nonentities. Read the articles and decide for yourself.


 * The heck you want? A cover article about Senyaka in The Atlantic? If you all wanted to be of the mind "Well OK it meets the WP:GNG, since the material at Uncanny X-Men.net and Comic Vine alone does that easily without even considering all the other stuff, but it should be deleted anyway, because ___________." Make your case. But it's a different case than nominator made. Isn't it. There's a lot more to unpack here, a lot more, but for a start, nominator has nominated hundreds of articles and knows WP:BEFORE quite well, so when he says he's vetted the article and found that it doesn't meet the GNG he's.... well, he's... he's being not accurate. I call upon the closer to consider this. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You've literally cited several other wikis as "articles." I get your whole thing is IAR inclusionism with complete disregard of all policies and guidelines, but that's just silly. TTN (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're right, as regards Comics Vine section, it says it is a wiki, I missed that, sorry, and thank you for finding that. OK, that matters, but setting that one aside for the moment, we still have Uncanny X-Men.net and Writeups.org, and that's enough to meet the GNG, again that's without counting the CBR bit or anything else. None of these are wikis. It's less of a slam-dunk, true.


 * Also, I'm really not some kind of montebank. Last time I analyzed my stats I was just slightly more inclusionist than average, I vote to delete articles more than not, have closed more AfDs as delete than not, and have nominated a few. Most articles that come to AfD should be deleted. What I don't like to see is salvagable articles being deleted, and what I particularly don't like to see is salvagable articles being nominated because of the subject. I mean you do know that your editing record is public. I don't really have an opinion on comics and seldom read them or work on them here, but at the same time they're a legit part of the world now. They just are, and it doesn't matter how much anybody doesn't like it. Those people can yell at the maid about it or whatever. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "uncannyxmen.net | An X-Men Resource, for the fans, by the fans". Fan sites are not very reliable... when those are the 'best' sources, it's a clear indication the topic belongs on a fanpedia at Fandom, not on Wikipedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "for the fans, by the fans"... well who do expect to write and read it? Interpretive dancers? Welders? Evan Steward (the author) is an expert in the field, clearly has the source material right in front of him, is clearly skilled and diligent, and is writing for a high-quality site that that's 20 years old and has several people involved (I don't know the internal workings, but it's a multi-person website at the least). These are OK sources, why are trying to set a higher standard for sources on this particular subject than others? Oh wait. Herostratus (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S as no coverage for unique page. Tulkijasi (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S given coverage is limited to plot summaries on fansite or otherwise not-independent media ("The Marvel Encyclopedia" and like are licenced plot summaries for fans and are not sufficient for establishing notability as they are just companion works for the comics and such). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh hi User:Piotrus. Say, what brings you here? It's not a vote you know. Closers are able to recognize tag-teaming.


 * "licenced plot summaries". Licensed by whom from whom. Are you trying to say "official"? Is that a bad thing now? There are a lot of books on the general subject and it's hard to keep track of which is which, but if you're talking about this Marvel Encyclopedia, do you mean the one that was "produced by Marvel staff" or the one that was "written by former Marvel editor Tom DeFalco"? It's hard to keep track of which high-selling works written by experts in the field and published by large respected houses you guys are deprecating today.


 * "for fans"... what the heck to do you expect the audience for these works to be? People who aren't interested in the subject? That would be a poor business model n'est-ce pas? Isn't it kind of... I don't know, madness?... to criticize publications because they are written for people who want to read them? Advances in Radio Science is written for fans of radio science. History of Geo- and Space Sciences is written for fans of Geo- and Space Sciences. The first one has no refs and second one refs to itself and a bare list of cites. This is common for these articles. Why don't you go attack those articles instead? Gee one might suspect that you guys's relentless crusade is predicated on class bigotry. "Fans..." "fansites..." "fancruft".. .Why not just say "This article is about the sort of the stuff the maid reads, delete" be done with it? Herostratus (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @HerostratusPlease WP:REFACTOR and apologize for your AGF-failing and unfounded claim that I am involved in some tag teaming here. TIA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's just say... shared community of single-purpose interest. I didn't say you are tag-teaming. Who knows? It's impossible to prove either way. Maybe you're just individually looking for places to pounce on your own dime. Probably are. The effect is the same tho. I just said "Closers are able to recognize tag-teaming.". If you're not tag-teaming you have nothing to worry about, right? Closers know what's what, and it's up to the closer to draw her own conclusions, that's all. Herostratus (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S - The vast majority of the sources suggested above are either from unreliable sources, or are not secondary. The few that aren't are very brief mentions. Since the current entry at the character list is just a link to this article, a merge adding the basic info is about all that is warranted.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2021 (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.