Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanth Dreadstar


 * 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 to Dreadstar. Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Vanth Dreadstar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. The sources added for the de-PROD are a mostly poorly chosen link-dump that add nothing significant to the article.


 * "Dreadstar: Jim Starlin's Odyssey" - Overview on the comic as a whole with two little pieces of development information. While I admittedly did not read the entire article start to end, it looks like 95% of the character mentions are within the context of the overall plot summary. There's a snippet about the character's name and a single sentence about his role in contrast to two others. Neither are significant. It's all focused on the work at large. Does the original author being involved in that specific publication in more than just an interviewee capacity make it a primary work in this circumstance?
 * "Arcanum 20: Judgment" - Unless I'm missing something, the character isn't even mentioned. Only the work is mentioned. Maybe I'm just blind.
 * The Comics Journal - Hard to tell without being able to see the full pages, but ultimately seems to be a couple snippets of minor criticism.
 * Adventure Heroes - Literally just an encyclopedia of in-universe descriptions. No commentary at all.

These clearly show the character is not a notable entity outside of the context of the series. There is nothing from which to even begin to build an article without vastly misinterpreting the minor weight those sources give the character. TTN (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the nominator's description of the first source is a little misleading. Sure, it gives an overview of the comic in general, but there's a lot of information about the character himself in there that could serve non-inuniverse sections of this article, such as conception/origins, development, themes, etc. The fact that multiple pages are missing from the preview also indicates from me there is even more to be gleaned from this source if a hard copy were to be obtained. The other sources don't appear to be as in-depth but could still be used to support aspects of the article. There's more than enough here for an expansion to get started... — Hunter Kahn 20:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the search results, "Vanth" is only mentioned on pages 49 and 51 after the full page preview ends. The smaller previews for those pages show that those mentions are more in-plot mentions. There is very little overall discussion of the singular character in the entire thing. It's a good source for the comic article, but a meh source for the character. TTN (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I was actually referring more to the pages within the article itself that are missing, likes pages 37-38. Though maybe our search results are somehow different, because I see a ton of information about the character beyond the comic book itself as I read through this. — Hunter Kahn 21:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you equating the development of the comic to the development of the character? There seems to be plenty on the comics, but those each have their own articles. Specific discussion on the character is extremely limited other than the two minor things mentioned above from what I can see. TTN (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NEXIST. In addition to the sources that I added to the page, there's also
 * The Art of Jim Starlin: A Life in Words and Pictures (IDW, 2010). I don't have the book, but Amazon's got the back cover, which says, "Best known for scripting... his "cosmic" tales involving Captain Marvel, Adam Warlock, the Silver Surfer, Vanth Dreadstar, and his own creation, the villain Thanos." The contents page says that the chapter on Dreadstar is pg 172-197. I think being called out by name makes it very likely that there will be relevant content about Vanth Dreadstar in that book. I can't prove it because, like I said, I don't own the book, it costs about sixty bucks, and even if I wanted to buy it from Amazon, it wouldn't get here in time for the AfD to be over. :)
 * Ditto the Back Issues issue. I don't think you can judge how in-depth the coverage is based on snippets of pages, because the very nature of snippets is that you're only getting a sentence and a half. So in addition to the multiple pages we can see in the preview, there are at least two other pages with relevant material.
 * For the Illuminated Fantasy: from Blake's Visions to Recent Graphic Fiction, the references to the character are on page 150: "Having learned his lesson that Armageddon does not lead to New Jerusalem but merely to more Armageddons, Vanth insists on proceeding in a slow, non-cataclysmic manner. In comic books, even when apocalypses occur, they do not really tend to lead to a universal end. After all, sequels are too profitable." Just a few sentences, but using Vanth as a specific character to demonstrate a larger point that the author is making.
 * The three of us who have spoken so far (TTN, Hunter Khan and I) don't currently have access to some of the sources that we're trying to evaluate right now. It would be great if someone who has these sources comes along, and contributes to this conversation. But for us, right now, I think saying "there probably is some good, in-depth information in some of those pages that we know exist but can't see," versus "there probably isn't" is just a guess on both sides.
 * WP:NEXIST says, "Before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." I think there's probable cause to suggest that sources do exist, and that deleting the article based on pre-judgment that the reference material that we can't see is probably not good enough would be a mistake. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This preview on the artbook shows a glimpse of what seems to be a primary focus on the art itself and a very minor focus on little quips on the art here and there. The likelihood of anything significant in terms of text is low. There seems to be no promise of in-depth interviews or the such. It's also a primary work, so it's not really relevant. The lack of major details in the Back Issue's first half gives little room for the idea that the latter half has anything significant. The "Illuminated fantasy" mention is exceedingly minor, and you really need to twist that sentence to even make it relevant to the character. There is nothing here that has any meat to it. TTN (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Sources I could access or described here do not contain in-depth coverage. One-two sentences in passing is not in-depth. Focus on PLOT is not-depth. And interviews with creator in another comic book or such are not independent. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 00:38, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Online source evaluations will be muddied by the character's last name also being the title. It's not unreasonable to assume writers will refer to him as "Dreadstar". I'm undecided on the notability of this particular subject. I feel like readers would be better served by merging it with Metamorphosis Odyssey and Dreadstar, but I don't know which location would be best. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dreadstar. As it stands, the current article is nearly entirely unsourced, so actually needing to Merge anything is not necessary.  Additionally, as stated above, the proposed sources are largely inaccessible as far as how much information could actually be used to demonstrate independent notability for the character, and generally, "sources might exist" is not a valid argument for keeping.  What we do have access to, however, does not appear to be sufficient coverage to support an independent article.  A Redirect to one of the main articles on the comics would make sense as a valid search term, however.  It also seems like the best compromise at this point, as if, in the future, someone is able to adequately show that those proposed sources do in fact contain enough information that an independent article is justifiable, it can be spun back out with its history intact.  Of the two proposed targets mentioned by Argento Surfer, I think Dreadstar makes more sense.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dreadstar, the accessible sources do not contribute to notability for the character being either passing mentions or in-universe information that fails WP:PLOT, and if it is shown to be notable at a future date it can just be recreated from the redirect. Since the article is made up entirely of in-universe material a merge is not necessary here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dreadstar as a mostly unsourced plot summary. The few sources that it does have are passing mentions and rather tangential. Reyk <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.