Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Judge Child


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The Judge Child

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

Judge Dredd's storyline, a lenghty plot summary with no reception, effectively unreferenced (just three footnotes, all to the comic books). 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)
 * 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. Just not enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Open to a merge or redirect if any reliable coverage is found at all. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:14, 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) 10:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There is seemingly no SIGCOV on this topic. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:52, 4 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.