Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terrible Trio


 * 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. A significant amount of non in-universe coverage has led to a clear consensus that notability is demonstrated Nosebagbear (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Terrible Trio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG/NFICTION. Prod declined by User:Jhenderson777 with a request for AfD so here we go. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let this page stay. They are a recurring enemy of Batman. Plus, where else would they be merged with? The group villains section of the List of Batman family enemies? --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: There's eight paragraphs on the Terrible Trio in The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes vol. 1: Batman, available at the Internet Archive here. I'll see if I can find more. There's a lot of published analysis of 40s & 50s Batman, so there may be other good sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's also an entry on the Terrible Trio in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia by Robert Greenberger, Del Rey Publishing 2008. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * My stance is obviously Keep. Full details of why when more active. Jhenderson  7 7 7  22:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails to establish notability. There is zero commentary in "The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes vol. 1: Batman," so that is trivial coverage. I cannot seem to find the pages covering the topic in the second source, but the general theme seems to be limited to in-universe descriptions. TTN (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Eight paragraphs is trivial coverage? I've seen "that's trivial coverage because it only mentions in one sentence that X exists," but I think eight paragraphs in a published, reliable source should count. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's simply a description of their in-universe role with zero real world commentary. The book is as described, and it's thus completely useless for anything aside from verification. TTN (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Going back to WP:GNG: The Encyclopedia of Comic Book Heroes offers "significant coverage" because the topic is addressed directly and in detail, and is more than a trivial mention. It has editorial integrity (published in multiple editions by multiple publishers over decades). It's a secondary source that's independent of the topic -- it's been reprinted by DC but was originally written and published by an independent company. In other words, it's a reliable published work of literary criticism about this subject area, and it considers this page's topic to be notable, therefore: notability. I don't see anything in GNG that creates a distinction between "real world commentary" and "in-universe". -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPLOT and WP:WAF. These dictate how we treat fiction. If the source cannot do anything to fulfill those, it is trivial coverage. It's just a fluff source with absolutely nothing to say. We cannot have articles that are solely plot information. These encyclopedias provide only a plot summary of the items listed. They're simply completely factual details with zero commentary that can be replaced by primary material with no loss in quality to the sourced statement. TTN (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I used to think that having an article in another reference work should be enough, but when such entries are just plot summaries, I concur, we need a bit more. After all, WP:PLOT... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * . If you could find external sources on news results. That could help even more. So far I am noticing at least one source that might could help reception wise here. Also since they have appeared recently in comic books like this that could maybe help. It’s obvious they are still being utilized. So hopefully we could do more digging. Jhenderson  7 7 7  05:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a review on Nerdist of the TT's episode from Batman: The Animated Series which discusses their depiction as overprivileged rich kids. Also a review on Batman-news.com of the recent Batgirl arc. They're also mentioned in Hero-A-Go-Go: Campy Comic Books, Crimefighters, & Culture of the Swinging Sixties and A Boy Who Loved Batman: A Memoir. Also mentioned in Tech Times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, a long established and commonly recognized part of the Batman universe, notable on its own, and per WP:CRYSTAL, per Jhenderson777 when he puts up more details. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Multiple sources seem to be available to establish notability for this subject. — Hunter Kahn 17:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:GNG, like a good chunk of these disruptive deletion spammings.  Dark Knight  2149  20:47, 20 January 2020 (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.