Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volcana (DC Comics)


 * 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 keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  19:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Volcana (DC Comics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails to establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Once again, per every deletion policy and guideline, "Fails to establish notability" is not a valid reason to nominate articles (especially multiple articles) for deletion. You should be aware of WP:DELREASON by now.
 * Per WP:ARTN, " Article content does not determine notability . Notability is a property of a and not of a Wikipedia article."
 * Per WP:NEXIST, " Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."
 * Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
 * Per WP:GNG, " Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists . The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."
 * Do we really need to go through this again? WP:GNG refers to the existence of sources, not the citations in the article.  Dark knight  2149  10:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Verifiability means that sources need to be connected with the article. If you can find adequate sources you can add them to the article. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so we show no deference to past editors and follow sourcing, not inividual whims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Negative. Nothing in WP:Verifiability overrides deletion nomination policy. If you believe or can establish that an article truly fails WP:GNG, then you have a basis for a nomination. "There aren't enough sources in the article to establish WP:GNG" doesn't cut it, particularly when it comes to filing multiple nominations.  Dark knight  2149  18:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep; as per discussions above, I feel the nominator needs to come back here and demonstrate lack of notability. In the absence of same, Keep. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep The nominator does not say if they completed a Before search for sources before nominating for deletion. They may have done so, but judging from the deletion rationale it seems they did not. I agree that this article should be kept, at least for now. Rhino131 (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2020 (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.