Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobias Whale


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. After extended time for discussion, there is no reasonable possibility that this will be deleted, and a reasonable argument that additional sources exist that prove notability. BD2412 T 03:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Tobias Whale

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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. The Encyclopedia of Supervillains is not independent, and its coverage is limited to plot summaries and occasional notes about which issue a character debuted - this type of 'fanpedia' is often less useful than our own entries or most fan wikis.Other than that we have few mentions in passing that he appeared in a TV series. No coverage I see goes beyond plot summaries and mentions of 'appeared here or there'. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:40, 5 April 2021 (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  02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Let this page stay. Tobias Whale is the archenemy of Black Lightning like Lex Luthor is to Superman. As for one of those references you stated, one of them was added by to help out the page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , The difference is Superman is quite famous. BL is much less so, before his recent TV show he was pretty much a nobody, and even know most people are 'wait, who?'. Anyway, it doesn't matter whose archenemy he is, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wondering if the nom actually did those google searches mentioned? a / b / c / d / e / f / g / h - Some talk about the tv show character. but they also talk about the importance of the character in comics as well. Kinda surprised to see this listed, actually. - jc37 02:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , And which of those sources goes beyond a plot summary and/or a note that he has appeared in the TV show? Still no WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do actually. But I've already read them. I'll give you an opportunity to read them so that we can discuss them, and your belief that this article page should be deleted. - jc37 14:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, one thing that I feel should be said, and I was going to mention this at Articles for deletion/New Republic (Star Wars) (2nd nomination) before it was closed, but your standard for "significant coverage" is frankly much higher than almost everyone elses. In the aforementioned AfD, you attempted to handwave several reliable sources away as fancruft sources (including The Hollywood Reporter, Wired, IGN, and Vox) and you have been known to dismiss sources that discuss characters from a real world perspective in non-trivial detail as "All plot" because they have plot details in them (unavoidable for any fictional character) or for subjective reasons like not having enough academic importance (which is not required by WP:SIGCOV). "Significant coverage" means that a topic is covered is significant detail, not that it's existence cured cancer or something.  Dark  knight  2149  04:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , SIGCOV states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Examples given are one sentence - not enough, and one book - enough. What we have here is few sentences here and there, mostly plot summary, catalog entries on 'appeared in this book' or press release 'will appear in this TV show'. Given what the policy says and its spectrum of sentence-to-book, are my expectations of at least a paragraph of analysis too high, or are the standards of some people here too low? Shrug. It is obvious that regardless of what the policy says, I am in a minority here, and perhaps WP:IAR does support overruling of policy in such cases, but at the very least I don't believe I am the one who is ignoring what the policy states. And if there is a repeated consensus SIGCOV needs changing, perhaps with the statement "two sentences are sufficient", feel free to propose a change to its wording. Anyway, back on subject at hand. Only two sources above  seem to approach SIGCOV, most are pure noise (plot summary/press release and their rewrites) and waste of our (reading) time. Given that they are heavily based on WP:INTERVIEW and relate only to the TV version of the character, I am still not convinced the subject is notable. Not that it seems to matter, my dissenting opinion is clearly in the minority. So be it. Maybe this topic will be revisited in another decade, as our standards are tightening. Or maybe we are reaching an equilibrium and such articles will be considered fine forever (and also, more sources may be found in years to come). Shrug. This was borderline and needed a discussion, that's all. PS. I'll note that despite all the comments 'he is important', nobody has yet bothered to add a reception section to the article. Until this is done we can't even justify removing the notability... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I only looked at the first 2 sources provided by, and there's enough analysis in there to easily pass WP:GNG. Discussion of the origin of the character from the creator and looking at his place as an albino, going beyond plot. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 08:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep enough information and analysis of the TV version of the character to pass GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A recurring character in numerous adapations and media; there's plenty of detailed coverage and so WP:GNG is satisfied. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the existing coverage and the criteria outlined at WP:GNG.  Dark knight  2149  04:31, 13 April 2021 (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.