Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceman Spiff (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Calvin and Hobbes. I would like to express my gratitude towards Daranios for their thorough effort at finding sources. Regrettably, the consensus is that the verifiable content that can be gleaned from those sources should be included as part of the main Calvin and Hobbes article rather than in a standalone article. I hope that we can make use of Daranios's sources moving forward. Mz7 (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Spaceman Spiff
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No out-of-universe notability asserted. There are no sources at all in the article, and I was unable to find any that did not originate from Watterson himself except for a few superficial mentions (less than a full sentence) in articles about Calvin and Hobbes. Neither Calvin nor Hobbes has his own article, so it makes zero sense for Spiff to have one. Redirect was contested with rationale of "take it to AFD". Previous AFD was in 2005, when rationales for keeping were vastly different than they are now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment why would you redirect it if there was a prior AfD? That’s clearly not appropriate. Artw (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By what policy? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that the first nomination ended in Keep. Why does your opinion overrule the opinion of the participants of the first discussion? Donald D23   talk to me  11:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that a policy, though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete for its original research. No comment on the other points. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Attempting to find the full text or a quote at an established RS, but what i have seen of "The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book" confirms what is in the article. Have added it in a more conventional citation format with a "check", which I will be following up on shortly. Artw (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to Calvin and Hobbes. The character is not independently notable (doesn't meet WP:GNG), and is not significant enough to merit a WP:SPINOFF. Just like Calvinball, transmogrifier, and many other wonderful parts of C&H, the content about Spaceman Spiff belongs in the the C&H article so the reader can read it in context. Spiff just isn't significant enough to merit being spun off onto a separate page. (Also the arguments about the 2005 AFD are as laughable as they are deceptive: this was a redirect from 2006, after the AFD, until 2019; and seriously, a 2005 AFD?? That's way too old to care about.) Levivich 18:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to Daranios's ping below, I agree that at least this paper and this German book (AGFing that it's SIGCOV, as I don't speak German, but it sure looks like SIGCOV) count as GNG sources. Striking my !vote accordingly. This places Spaceman Spiff in WP:PAGEDECIDE territory. I'm still of the mind that the article should be merged and redirected because I think it's better to cover Spiff in the article about C&H rather than a WP:SPINOFF, and I think if we were to spinoff anything from the C&H article, it should be a sub-article about Calvin and a sub-article about Hobbes, but on the other hand, if someone wanted to spinoff Spiff first, that's permitted by our global consensus, and there's enough RS material to write an article about Spiff. So put me down for keep or redirect, either one is fine with me (not delete, though). Levivich[block] 14:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. A few more sentences could be added to the Spaceman Spiff entry there. I just don't see that the character is notable enough on their own. As for the 2005 AFD we could now have editor, who have children, that were children in 2005 (sorry for making everyone feel old), and a generation old AFD holding any weight is overly bureaucratic. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Still not convinced this should be stand alone, but merge to a list article seems reasonable. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. Why have a second article when the information can be put in proper context in the original article. I dearly love Calvin and Hobbes, and of course Spaceman Spiff - who couldn't? - but he doesn't need a separate article. Elemimele (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Lots of options suggested, trying to see some consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect back to Calvin and Hobbes. That's clearly the suitable solution for this. Reyk YO! 09:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. Stand-alone notability is too weak, but redirects are WP:CHEAP. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - and if the person who undid the redirect isnt going to even offer a reason why it should not be redirected this should be closed per SNOW sooner rather than later.  nableezy  - 20:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not SNOW by any means as there are plenty of KEEP votes. Donald D23   talk to me  21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This is notable after all: Das Science Fiction Jahr 2014 has more than 5 pages on Spaceman Spiff, including analysis and the fact that the figure precedes Calvin & Hobbes; if the titel and abstract are to be believed, this 23 page paper deals with the figure to a significant extent. And then there are many secondary sources with shorter treatment (but much more than "less than a full sentence"), like Imagination and Meaning in Calvin and Hobbes, Looking for Calvin and Hobbes, or this paper. So no WP:SNOW here. I wonder why not at least some of those were found in the required WP:BEFORE search. That "Neither Calvin nor Hobbes has his own article" is a valid complaint, but should have no bearing on the question of deletion of this article, because as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST it is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. I am asking everyone to consider these sources, pinging specifically those who mentioned doubts about notability . Daranios (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the verifiable content, along with any on Calvin and Hobbes themselves, could be merged to List of Calvin and Hobbes characters. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per found sources, no objection to merge. Artw (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources by Daranios. Donald D23   talk to me  21:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources by Daranios. This is WP:SIGCOV, international and [WP:SUSTAINED]] over a period of years, more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG Jacona (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge and redirect. Spaceman Spiff has no existence independent of the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, so there is no reason this can't receive appropriate coverage in that article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's yet another secondary source which has a good-sized paragraph on Spaceman Spiff: Comics Through Time: A History of Icons, Idols, and Ideas p. 928. It also tells us that the character had a history before Calvin, though, granted, those earlier strips don't seem to have been published. Another reason why treatment in a stand-alone article might be preferable is the sheer amount of material presented on Spaceman Spiff in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge as the compromise position for most editors. I don't see enough coverage here to meet the WP:GNG but there are some mentions that could be covered at the main topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Calvin and Hobbes - As WP:NOPAGE describes, "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." This would be one of those cases. While there are sources that demonstrate some notability of the topic, it would make much more sense to cover the topic in the main Calvin and Hobbes article rather than spinning it out into a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2022 (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.