Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege Perilous (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 delete. The numbers are comparable, but the arguments on the delete side are more in-line and focused. I read a rough consensus to delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC). Changing result to Merge - I see a narrow rough consensus to delete on this page, but a broader consensus to merge on related articles. So I factoring in the broader consensus and consistent approach.-- Mojo Hand (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Siege Perilous (comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable object from the Marvel universe. Written in-universe with no real world context. Can not find and highly doubt sources can be found to establish notability and add real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Almost all of the sourcing appears to be primary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Over 500 pages link to this article. There are lots of secondary and tertiary sources out there for this. There is a link to a substantial piece of literary criticism on the link at the bottom of the article from an independent reliable source. Where did you look for sources? Only portions of the article are written in-universe and that can be fixed. The article can certainly be expanded.42of8 (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A host of fan websites don't constitute reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you say the same exact thing in everyone of these debates I am now forced to cut and paste a very long detailed reply to you in all of these AFDs. 42of8, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedic the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since we've kept Features of the Marvel Universe, a merge into that article is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into the features article. It doesn't matter either way so long as it doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Merger into Siege Perilous would be most sensible as that page is currently quite small and could use more content. Arthurian myth has been endlessly recycled and so it makes sense to keep all developments of it together.  Warden (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep a few Google News searches yield The Atlantic, Comic Vine (Which seems to be a subsidiary of CBS Interactive), among others, which suggest that the GNG is either met, or close to met, just based on a few minutes of my own Google News efforts. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - lacks independent reliable sources that establish the out-of-universe notability of this fictional item. For example, the first source offered by Jclemens is a blog post of unclear reliability which mentions the object in a single run-on sentence that reads in relevant part "...Havok was one of the Magistrates since having his memory wiped by the Siege Perilous." without bothering even to explain what that is within the fiction itself. The second apparently allows anyone to edit (I signed up through a dummy Facebook account but didn't change anything) and is a plot summary of an X-Men issue which starts "Rogue has returned to the X-Men's base in the Australian outback after being spat out by the Siege Perilous." again with no explanation of what that even is within the fiction. The reason so many pages link to this article is because it's included in four different templates and so appears to link to every other page within that template. Remove the links from the templates and those fall away within a few hours. The "substantial literary criticism" linked at the bottom of the article is to uncannyxmen.net which does not appear to exercise the sort of editorial control needed to be considered reliable. In the absence of independent reliable sources the article should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe or Delete, the article only has primary sourcing and thus fails WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage from multiple reliable sources". Trivial mentions and fansites are not enough to meet the requirements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2013 (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.