Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stark Industries


 * 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 KEEP Non-admin closure and tagged with Cleanup AfD template  Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Stark Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As well written as this article is, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia. It's basically an article written as though it were a real company, but its subject is a fictional company. Nearly all the references are to comic books.

The relevant information in the article could very easily be added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with the Iron Man article.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep 1, 2, 3 independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss it substantially, and that's just on the first page of the Google Books search. While Stark Industries is intrinsically connected to the Iron Man franchise, that doesn't preclude an independent article.  It's been dealt with in print, cartoon animation, and live action movies.  Suggesting it be merged into Iron Man is like suggesting that Hogwarts be merged into Harry Potter: it's certainly plausible, but would be a clear disservice as it would clutter the parent article unnecessarily with material on a clearly notable fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that the article is written as though it were a legitimate real company, when in fact it is a fictional company. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of WP:ATD? Specifically, that if a page can be improved through regular editing, deletion is not appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that if you eliminate all of the in-universe content from this article you're left with about 3 lines that say "Stark Industries is the fictional corporation in the Marvel universe. It serves as a plot device to provide Tony Stark, the alter-ego of Marvel's Iron Man, with the funds to research and produce his mechanized suits of Armor. Stark Industries has also served an important role in the development of various other technology driven characters in the Marvel universe, including Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man, and many others." I'm failing to see why the article cannot be distilled down to non-in-universe statements and added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So have you worked in fictional elements articles much? Because what you describe is not in any way required to deal with fictional elements. Seriously, go look at Hogwarts. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that Hogwarts is bad too, doesn't make Stark Industries good. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You failed to answer the question. Rather than presuming to answer for you, I'd prefer to redirect to the original question: Have you worked in fictional elements articles much? Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The sources Jclemens provided show notability, as do a couple of the references in the article itself. Issues with the way the article is written are solved by correcting those issues, not by deleting the article.  If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.  Notability can be established through 4 or 5 references, and the other 200 references in the article could verify content without showing notability and it would not affect the notability of the article, so the fact that "nearly all the references are to comic books" is also not a reason to delete an article.  That's an issue of WP:UNDUE perhaps, but again that is something that can be corrected through editing the article, not deletion.  Worst case scenario would be the article would need to be stubified, but I'm not seeing any cause for deletion. - SudoGhost 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article needs to be rewritten to distinguish that it is a fictional company, but that is a relatively minor thing. Furthermore, that is not a reason to delete an article; that's why those tags at the top of articles exist. It is a well-written and well-referenced article with no clear reason to be deleted. Spidey  104  14:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This book also offers some coverage. There seems to enough material to support an individual article.  Gong   show  23:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination does not advance a policy/guideline based delete argument, while the article itself, if presumed notable from all its sources and avoid WP:INUNIVERSE, should be kept as an article. There is no guideline that says we cannot have articles on fictional characters, stories, or fictional elements like companies and objects. Mkdw talk 05:58, 6 March 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.