Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Summers brother (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Vulcan_(Marvel_Comics). v/r - TP 17:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Third Summers brother
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previous AfD was closed as a no consensus. The problems that caused the first AfD are still present. Because of this, as suggested in the deletion review, I'm nominating it again. None of the reliable sources cited within the article addresses the topic as a plot point. The only one that actually addresses the topic is a fansite, not a reliable secondary source. The content of the article appears to rely on original research by synthesis at best, by taking information from four different fictional characters and creating a topic that is not covered in detail in reliable third-party sources. The article never establishes the importance of the third Summers brother as a plot point and it merely details information about the fictional characters that at some point were though to be the third Summers brother. Of all references, there is only one reliable secondary source that addresses the topic, which is Comic Book Resources (CBR), but even in that publication the plot point is not addressed directly (only in one of the CBR references the plot point has some overage by repeating the plot of the comics, the rest are trivial mentions) and none of them shows reception or significance for the plot point in the real-world, so the plot point, as a topic, does not show evidence that it can be covered in an encyclopedic manner as required by Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only thing related to a real-world perspective are the interviews to the authors that were related to the creation of the fictional characters, which means that all real-world context is taken exclusively from primary sources. With only one reliable secondary source that does not give analytic or evaluative claims about the third Summers brother as a plot point, I do not believe that as a subject the plot point meets the general notability guideline. Also, I do not think that the third Summers brother plot point meets the presumption that as a subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it has no reception or significance in the real-world and it can only be described from a plot-only perspective or by putting rea-wolrd context taken from primary sources exclusively. A search engine test does not show anything different as all results are either unreliable sources or repeat the information from this article. Jfgslo (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  —Jfgslo (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). In the previous discussion I had argued to keep the article because I could add a reliable source and that the article should be merged if I could not find it. I was unable to find the source I was talking about, so I think it should be condensed and merged. Spidey  104  04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). I do not agree with the source description and the article analysis given by Jfgslo. I have already stated my opinion in the previous AfD and described my vision of the article and the sources which is less dark than the nominator's opinion. I won't rewrite everything, I focus my efforts by explaining my vote for a merge. Before this AfD, two merges have been proposed, I agree with Kurt Parker's analysis in the previous AfD "I realize there have been merge discussions before that ended in consensus to not merge, but those were conducted under the natural assumption that both articles would continue to exist. I think all editors that were against the merge before would not be for the merge instead of losing the article's information completely. Vulcan would be the best location for this merge, but obviously I think keeping it as a separate article would be better.". Xymmax closed the previous AfD with "Editors may wish to consider carefully if an appropriate merge target can be developed." Merge has been suggested in the deletion review. We discuss the problem of this article with other contributors  and our solution was to condensed and merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). --Crazy runner (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Vulcan (Marvel Comics). As above. would be a waste to delete good work on these grounds, and is an interesting dangling thread of continuity in the MU. Benny Digital  Speak Your Brains 11:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How's this for a reliable source: a link to an article Robert Weinberg, a former writer on Cable, wrote on the subject: http://www.comixfan.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24515

I wasn't sure whether to credit Robert Weinberg or Jim Lemoine, so I went with the former, since he wrote the article. I'll leave the finessing to more expert hands than mine. :D --Gokitalo (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2011 (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.