Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Doomsday Scenario


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to 2000 AD (comics). as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The Doomsday Scenario

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

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, footnotes are all again just to the comic book issues. I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale " I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale, but - let's discuss. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. But there is an unbolded Keep and a hint of a Redirect in these comments so we are a ways from a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate article, and no reliable sources at all, at this point. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. It was deprodded by User:Necrothesp with the following rationale "I think this needs to go to AfD" which IMHO is not a helpful rationale... As you very well know, a prodded article can be deprodded by anyone for any reason or none. As you also very well know (or should do), prodding should not be used as an attempt to get around AfD and should never be used if opposition could be reasonably foreseen. I do not consider that this is an article that should simply be deleted without discussion. Prodding is becoming worryingly common on articles for which deletion could clearly be controversial. To reiterate, prodding is for uncontroversial deletion only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment This feels like a keep to me based on the subject itself, but I observe there's no critical reception section and therefore no immediate source of sourcing. Let's see what can be done about that... Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Question if we draftify these articles, how easy would they be to find for any potential future resurrection? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @BoomboxTestarossa Outside folks noticing them from editing mode information about deletion (deletion log), we can leave a note about this on Talk:Judge Dredd or such (which almost nobody reads, sadly). SOFTDELETION through redirecitng would make things easier for folks to access in the rare cases they care and figure out how to do so. So redirecting to Judge Dredd and mentioning this in the big bad list of plot summaries there might work, for now... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a shame considering Judge Dredd's undoubted notability but sadly editors with the time and knowledge in the area to work on the overhaul needed seem to be thin on the ground (it's a sad surprise that these nominations haven't drawn more of a response) and I have a big slate; while I never say never to getting involved in a project this one seems like it would be a long way down the line if at all for me. So I would say redirect on sentimental terms, but would have no real grounds for an objection to delete. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Batman is notable, and the Batman storyline Batman: No Man's Land is notable, but we do have to have sources establishing that No Man's Land is notable. It feels like Doomsday should be notable, but we need sources confirming that it's notable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to 2000 AD (comics) at least, which already mentions it. Beyond that, we could probably merge some of the implicitly verifiable parts of the lead into that. We might also do a light complex merge (with attribution edit summary), for example could be merged into 2000 AD (comics) and Judge Dredd Megazine as appropriate. &mdash;siro&chi;o 04:34, 6 September 2023 (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.