Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolverine: The End


 * 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, if you want to discuss a merge please open a merge discussion, since sources can be found for the subject, it passes WP:BK, if not barely. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wolverine: The End

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Only plot; fails WP:FICT WP:BK. Lea (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No encyclopedic value --DerRichter (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not a fictional object, but a work of fiction whose objective existence can be confirmed, so WP:FICT does not apply. Perhaps the nominator meant WP:BK? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article rewritten to address concern of nominator. Suggest not using afd as a cleanup tool. Hiding T 18:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Redirect As per comments above, the issue has been addressed. While the article may no longer warrant being deleated, in its current form, I have no problem with its deleation. If push comes to shove, merge with the Wolverine article given that this is a plot line about him or create and merge with "The End" series article. We must be careful with deleating something that just has plot too quickly because it would, for consistency, warrant the deleation of the majority of articles dealing with comics, which is not an optimum solution. Thanks to Hiding for rewritting. Also please check the third edit of the article: it was much much longer and it is this article I encourage to be merged, as opposed to the three sentence article that currently exists. Furthemore, at a later date, I've personally redirected the article to Wolverine main article (see my edits). It is only later that the redirect was taken down. The redirect was in place from August 5, 2006 until May of 2007, almost a year. It was another user who decided to imput the plot overview. This issue has been discussed previously, I think in 2006. --RossF18 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Check Alternate versions of Wolverine. I propose redirect to here.--RossF18 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Hiding's fixes, or redirect per RossF18's input. BOZ (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant WP:BK of course, and no I didn't intend to use AfD's as clean-up tools. :-) I don't believe the book meets the notability guidelines (and certainly notability isn't asserted in the article), so I'll go for (merge and) redirect. -- Lea (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between an article and a section in a list? Hiding T 18:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That the article would remain a stub forever, whereas if it's a section, it has the context of a larger article (and greater chances of being properly maintained and sourced). -- Lea (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I dispute your points. As an article it remains easier to link to, easier to categorise and I can see no reason why it would be easier to watch a list article as opposed to this article. I also think it is impossible to prove that it will remain a stub forever, so it is perhaps unreasonable to make the assertion. It is entirely possible reviews of this work in the comics press exist which would allow further expansion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are not paper. Therefore, what does it matter that some encyclopedic articles are shorter than others? What is the benefit to us as an encyclopedia to gather short articles into a list since we are not made of paper and therefore do not have publication demands made of us. There is no need to limit our page count. Hiding T 18:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about limiting the number of articles; it's about the fact that this article exhists almost verbadum at Alternate versions of Wolverine. That is why the move for redirect. What is the point of having a three sentence article, even if there is a chance that it will expand in the future if this entire article already exists at Alternate versions of Wolverine. You're talking about duplication here. Wolverine: The End is not a series that invovles a team of characters. It's a series that involves one character and only had one single arc. Only 6 issues. It fits pefectly into Alternate versions of Wolverine. Encyclopedia or not, there is such a thing as pure duplication. This article has been a redirect for almost a year and then expanded to the description found at Alternate versions of Wolverine. Only recently has it been limited to 3 to 4 sentences. Given that one can find a discription of these 6 issues at Alternate versions of Wolverine, why would this article expand? Why would people spend time expanding this article if they could just expand the section found at Alternate versions of Wolverine. This is about consistency. There are no articles that consider only 6 issues. Just like there is no separate article devoted to Wolverine: Origin, there shouldn't be anything but a redirect for this article: redirect to here: Alternate versions of Wolverine. --RossF18 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article does not exist verbatim at Alternate versions of Wolverine. What appears there is a large summation of the plot of the comic book series. As for duplication, what happens when we also have List of Wolverine comics?  Or List of The End comic books?  Or many other lists.  Duplication is part and parcel of Wikipedia and is not discouraged, and there still seems to be no solid argument not to have an article here.  We are not paper.  We do not have to act as if we are.  We can duplicate and we can have separate articles which act as standalone referemce points in addition to other short list entries which would refer back.  However, this is not a debate to be held at afd, but rather at the article's talk page. Hiding T 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't want duplication; it makes maintenance a lot harder. Please read WP:DUP.  Also, the article still doesn't assert notability, which is required for any subject to have its own article. -- Lea (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a requirement for inclusion since Wikipedia has no rules. The duplication mentioned at WP:DUP is not the duplication referred to above.  Hiding T 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR applies for individual cases. Your arguments seem to pretty generic about comic book notability principles, so if you want to change that, please try to change the guideline (or add a specific guideline for comic books).  Otherwise, please tell us what makes this article different so that we might ignore the notability guidelines.  "I don't like the rules, so let's not apply them" is not a valid use of IAR. -- Lea (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misreading me. My statement is that this article improves the encyclopedia, therefore IAR applies.  Do you believe we should follow the rules even when they act contrary to improving the encyclopedia? As to comic book notability, at WP:COMICS we use WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT for our inclusion criteria.  Hope that helps. Hiding T 19:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hiding, you claim that there are no solid arguments for not having the article, and yet you do not read other people's posts in their entirity and repeat same things over and over again as if repetition will convince people (similar to what you want Wikipedia to become). As far as there not being notability requrements, you are just demonstrating that you really are not familiar with Wikipedia. Wikipedia does in fact have rules and as far as notability, see: Notability. Also re-read my post again. I make several points.
 * (Note to Hiding: Please, in particular, read Notability (books), which is relevant in this case. -- Lea (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * (Note to Lea: Please, in particular, read Notability (books), which states it is irrelevant in this case. Hiding T 19:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
 * First, I mention the duplication. The article at Alternate versions of Wolverine is the only thing that this article can become. Check a few posts before the current version of this article. It was just a summary. The summary was moved to Alternate versions of Wolverine so to attempt to move the summary to this article again, would, in fact, be duplication. Unless you want something here that is not a summary, which would be difficult to do because of notability requirements. Your arguments that duplicates are good make no sense and neither does your constant repeat of "we are not paper." We are not paper what? Paper encyclopedia? What does that have to do with anything? Does being on line gives us an excuse to have 20 repeat articles dealing with the same thing?
 * Second, notability. All existing X-Men related articles that deal with story arcs, are story arcs invoving a team. There are not story arcs that have their own articles when involving just one character, like the case here.
 * Third, the are no articles dealing with just 6 issues of a series. Unlike X-Men; Uncanny X-Men; and hundreds of other comic books that go to 50, 100, or 500 issues, this series only has 6 issues and will always have 6 issues.
 * Fourth, this is a limited series dealing with one character. The practice has always been that limited series dealing with one character would be described on that character's page. Check any X-Men page: Storm (comics), Gambit (comics), Rogue (comics). All of the mini-series with 6 or even 12 issues are described there. What you're suggesting is totally out of practice with what has been happening since the Wiki came into exhistance.
 * Fifth, that said, you are, of course, free to disregard everything said here and do what you want. That's the freedom of Wikipedia, not that there are no rules. Know, however, that the rest of us are free to edit too. That's also in line with freedoms of Wikipedia. --RossF18 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ross. I've been an editor on Wikipedia for nearly three years now, and helped to draft Notability, WP:WEB and the current disputed rewrite of WP:FICT so I hope I'm a little familiar with how Wikipedia works. I am reading what everyone is writing, I merely want to point out that Wikipedia:Notability is not a rule.  It does not have to be obeyed, and in fact if Wikipedians decide the encyclopedia is improved by doing otherwise then the community is allowed to do that. I'd like to dispute the point that "the article at Alternate versions of Wolverine is the only thing that this article can become."  To my mind that version is overly reliant on plot against WP:PLOT to the detriment of the whole list, unbalancing the whole page and somewhat biasing it in favour of that storyline.  It also appears to me to contain original research. With regards your second point, we are not discussing any other article in this deletion debate, we are discussing this one.  It is not considered useful to discuss other articles in deletion debates, since we tend to judge each article on its merits, potential or otherwise.  Therefore other articles have no bearing on this debate. As to your third point, it's worth bearing in mind that we are discussing a standalone story rather than "six issues".  This is a story.  It will always be a story.  It's a stroy publiched by a major comic book publisher during a crossover event.  It will likely be referenced in more than one article, as I have pointed out above.  Therefore, as I have already stated, it may make more sense not to merge this article, since it is unclear where the merge target is, and regardless, this is not the correct venue to have a merge discussion. To address your fourth point, I am unclear where it is stated that publications are always discussed on the character page. We also have examples where publications are discussed on the page of the overall arc the publication is a part of, so I think this contradicts your point somewhat. Lastly, I am well aware that everyone has the right to voice their opinion, and am staggered by the assertion that I have stated otherwise. As to their being rules, please review our first rule. Hiding T 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What cross over event was this story published during? This story is more than 2 years old now. It's one possibility of how Wolverine might die. In the last 2 years, there have been no reference to the arc as anything but a alternate plot line and thus belongs in alternate Wolverine article. This discussion might have started out as a deleation, but I'm suprised that a person who says there are no rules is so hamstrung on limiting this discussion only to deleation and only to this article. This discussion has not been about the deleation since the second post. The first post mentioned notability and the second post made changes to the article to make it notable enough, so by your "rule", the discussion should have stopped there. From then on the only thing we're discussing is whether to merger or redirect the article. There hasn't been talk of deleation for awhile now, regardless of how the article started out. So much for reading all the posts. We can not judge the article by what might happen in the future. We're not phsycics. We can only judge the article as it is now. And now, it does not warrant it's own description but needs to be redirected. If, and when, articles discussing this 6 issue story appear, you can make the changes then. This publication is not part of some overall arc. It's not part of any cross-over. It's a 6 issue story that's all by itself and not part of anything, but one possible end to Wolverine so saying things like "publications are discussed on the page of the overall arc the publication is a part of", doesn't apply here becuase there is not overall arc that this publication is a part of. It's a 6 issue story that's in a vacuum right now. When someone besides the original author decides to link the story to the main universe, then you can edit to your liking. As of now, this article can only exist in relation to Wolverine and doesn't apply to anyone else since it's something like 100 years into the future. If you have problems with the Wolverine: the End entry in the Alternative Wolverine article, make your edits there and make that article better, but abandoning that article to just create your own here just makes for a grand all edit war. As far as rules go, you seem intent to lay down "rules" that go along with your point of view, but when someone else cites normal proceedures, you ridicule and say that there are no rules. Then, in the very next sentence, you lay down your own rules. If there are truly no rules, what's the point of this discussion. Let's finish it and commence editing like crazy. Back and forth, back and forth. --RossF18 (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Ross. I'm not looking to lay down rules and I'm not looking to ridicule anyone.  I'm simply looking to discuss what's the best way to improve the encyclopedia here. I haven't created this article and I very rarely edit war.  I seem to have irked you somehow, and for that I apologise, but I still think that as there are possibly three valid places for this article to be merged too it makes sense just to leave it be. Hiding T 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to quickly summarize, after the long discussion, that notability still hasn't been established. (The discussion seems to be mostly about whether we should use the notability criterium at all.  Which I think we should. ^^) -- nominator Lea (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin's close deletion debates with reference to policy, not guidance. Notability is guidance.  It is up to us to find an area of agreement in this matter.  Currently I would suggest we are all agreed this article should not be deleted.  Anything else is a content dispute. Hiding T 19:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem, I don't think we "all agreed this article should not be deleted". The only one who "agrees" is you, with BOZ saying "keep or redirect".  All others are merge&redirect or delete, as far as I see.  -- Lea (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All I was saying is that I don't feel strongly about this one so I can go with the flow, but I do like most of Hiding's reasoning so I would support him in a Keep. :) BOZ (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, you must have a different definition of what merge or redirect means to me then. To me it means keep, because the article is not deleted.  That's the standard definition for keep on Wikipedia, that the article is kept in some form or other, even if in name only. Hope that clarifies, Hiding T 14:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Failing that, merge with The End (comics) (along with the other Foo: The End articles). Notability guidelines specific to comics have not been established, although there has been discussion of such in the past. Personally, I'm content with things as they are; I'd prefer not to be too bureaucratic about it. In my opinion, all publications from Marvel Comics and DC Comics are inherently notable, much in the same way that all television programs produced by the three major American networks are. This doesn't mean that having a standalone article is necessarily the best way to feature the content. The suggestions to move the content to another article have merit. It could always be split back into a standalone article if and when its size becomes too cumbersome. I don't agree that it should be deleted outright, however. The comic concerns a notable fictional character (whose exploits – although not this particular story – have been turned into a motion picture, one of the criteria of WP:BK) and is published by a notable publisher. To my mind, it's a question of where is the best fit for the content. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve using some reliable sources. Three minutes of google news searching turns up     . - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 14 February 2008 (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.