Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starjammers


 * 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. While two-thirds of the feedback here is in favor of keeping, three editors are providing no additional analysis and don't appear based in policy. That said, there is a case that the secondary sourcing meets GNG, and as the discussion hasn't developed the arguments out on both sides, I think a "no consensus" close makes the most sense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Starjammers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Usual-variety comic trivia. Fails GNG/WP:NFICTION. BEFORE fails to find anything that's not a PRIMARY source of a WP:PLOT-like fictional plot summary. Where is the literary, scholarly analysis of this niche comicverse organization? Please share any if you can find it. I do note that our page seems a bit more developed than https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Starjammers_(Earth-616) so any interested fan might want to consider copying some of our content over there. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I found multiple source on the team. I will use prose here at individual times: Jhenderson 7 7 7  02:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.cbr.com/x-men-strongest-most-dangerous-starjammers-ranked/
 * https://vocal.media/geeks/after-x-men-dark-phoenix-here-s-why-fox-need-to-launch-a-starjammers-franchise
 * https://www.space.com/starjammers-imperial-guard-returning-to-marvel.html
 * https://www.ign.com/articles/2017/08/02/corsair-and-the-starjammers-explained-who-are-the-x-men-characters
 * https://comicsalliance.com/cast-party-starjammers-movie/
 * https://screenrant.com/xmen-new-mutants-starjammers-comic/
 * https://www.bleedingcool.com/2019/08/29/starjammers-jonathan-hickman-ed-brisson-rod-reis-new-mutants-1-dawnofx/
 * https://www.cbr.com/new-mutants-betrayed-starjammers/
 * https://www.newsarama.com/46734-starjammers-and-imperial-guard-returning-in-a-big-way-says-cebulski.html
 * https://meaww.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-x-men-mcu-marvel-starjammers-shiar-aliens-andromeda-galaxy-mutants
 * https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/guardians-galaxy-3-what-happens-story-ends-995341 (brief mention)
 * https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/mutants-space-where-foxs-x-men-franchise-could-154508487.html
 * https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/marvel-set-to-re-launch-guardians-of-the-galaxy-comic-book-in-2019-118090500087_1.html (brief mention)
 * https://archive.nerdist.com/x-men-dark-phoenix-lilandra-characters-who-else/
 * https://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/04/24/x-men-movies-dark-phoenix-cosmic-aliens/
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=FEfpItTfiRYC&q=starjammers+x-men&dq=starjammers+x-men&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvpqr0hZvmAhUFZN8KHVdtAGQQ6AEIcTAJ
 * Please use prose because all I see is a WP:GOOGLEHITS list. Please explain how those sources are reliable, independent, in-depth, and go beyong WP:PLOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok: IGN = "The Starjammers were originally conceived by artist Dave Cockrum (best known for co-creating iconic X-Men characters like Storm, Colossus and Nightcrawler). Cockrum first pitched the Starjammers concept to Marvel to be used in "tryout" anthology books like Marvel Premiere and Marvel Spotlight, but the company never had room to include Cockrum's stories. Eventually, Cockrum brought the concept to Uncanny X-Men writer Chris Claremont, and the characters made their debut in 1977's Uncanny X-Men #104. Cockrum and Claremont also decided to add the twist that Corsair was Cyclops and Havok's long-lost father in order to justify making the Starjammers a recurring presence in the X-Men books." Jhenderson 7 7 7  06:08, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Vocal.media said similar: "Back in the 1970s, artist Dave Cockrum created a band of intergalactic space-pirates and freedom-fighters known as the Starjammers. Although Cockrum had initially hoped to have the Starjammers appear in their own series, he was doomed to disappointment; at the time, Marvel liked to try out new concepts in the Marvel Spotlight and Marvel Premiere series, but both were fully-booked for two years solid. Frustrated and impatient, Cockrum approached X-Men writer Chris Claremont, and persuaded him to integrate the Starjammers into his planned cosmic direction. Claremont and Cockrum were a tremendous team, and it didn't take much effort for them to weave the Starjammers into the X-Men comics. They revealed that the Starjammers were led by Major Christopher Summers, the father of Cyclops and Havok. Christopher and his wife had been abducted by the alien empire of the Shi'ar years ago, and after his wife's tragic death, Christopher led a handful of slaves in an escape. He took up the name Corsair, and led the escapees as pirates and rebels." Jhenderson 7 7 7  06:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the quotes, it is so much nicer to work with actual content rather than claims of 'it's notable'. That said, if this is the extent of what we have, it's in effect is a reliable source for publication history and minor elements of plot summary. I don't see any analysis that is related to literary theory, significance, or such. It is effectively saying that Artist A and B created a story, wanted to publish it in such and such way, but in the end published it in a slightly different way. I am sorry, but I think that while this may merit a two-three sentences in both the biographical articles about the notable artists as well as in X-Men article (or two or three, Cyclops is likely notable), I am still not convinced that this topic merits a stand-alone entry. Look at the article: it's 99% fancruft in-universe plot summary. And all we have from your sources is a sentence or two about publication history for this. Is this really something that encyclopedia should have? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jhenderson777. BOZ (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources provided give enough real world info, and pass WP:GNG. GNG is a relatively low bar to pass, and I don't see that it contains anything about the info having to be analytical in nature. Yes, the article is largely plot and could do with substantial trimming, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - Let this page stay. They are a good Marvel Comics teams. Plus and  are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jhenderson777. -- GentlemanGhost  (séance)  14:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per .  Dark Knight  2149  22:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - The sources above seem to be passing mention after passing mention. Sources on fiction need to have some kind of real world information to be considered significant per WP:WAF and WP:NOTPLOT. If the source regurgitates the plot or offers up a passing mention, it doesn't provide significant coverage. TTN (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and TTN. Fails the significant mention criterion of GNG no matter how much it gets WP:REFBOMBed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:12, 9 December 2019 (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.