Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocalypse: The Twelve
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Apocalypse: The Twelve
Fails to mention why the subject matter is notable Rau's talk 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I hope you realize the wrath that you're going to incur by proposing the deletion of X-men material from Wikipedia. Nerds everywhere will storm you. :) Celarnor (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a notable X-Men storyline and Marvel Comics crossover. The nominator never put a {{notability}} tag on the article and AFD is not for forced cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, the Twelve was a major plot dangler in the X-Men Comics. -- DCincarnate (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, per above. This has been a well-maintained article for quite some time, and there are many, many more, almost just like it (i.e, Uncanny X-men). It's a notable X-men series as well as a notable Marvel series. I have to say, I'd lose a lot of respect for WP if this were removed. Celarnor (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, we have to keep it! i've just added to it and it took me ages (i'm still slow at this). there's no way we're getting rid of it... unless we're out voted. Steveking 89 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because it is a major X-Men story does not mean that it gets its own article. And saying that "there are many, many more, almost just like it" is WP:POKEMON. Rau's talk 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- So which of these 42 policies would this topic violate? --Pixelface (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NOT. Rau's talk 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict... and basically the same info...)
Just at a rough glance? WP:PLOT (yes, it does fall under the 42) since this is in-story background and plot summary. WP:NOT#GUIDE is a maybe since there is a "Reading order" section (a stretch there). And there is the nagging bit about the notability guidelines (not under the 42 though).
That being said, the article should have been tagged for maintenance on Notability and Plot grounds before being punted to AfD. - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)- If anything, and it's a very strong if in my opinion, this article just needs to be worked on a little more to establish it's relation to other events/plots/etc to keep it from being just a summary. Deletion is not a solution to something this minor. Celarnor (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. Tell me how to remove my nomination and I will. That way, you can work on the article some. Then, after some time has passed, if the article has not improved, I will renominate it. Rau's talk 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I believe you would need to state "Withdrawn" just like a "keep" or "delete" and give your reason. After that, tag the article with the appropriate maintenance tags — {{notability}} and {{plot}} are a good place to start. {{Comics-in-universe}} also fits. - J Greb (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
Looking at the article, it goes a little beyond that. All we've got is information base on the 10 comic book issues and some of the lead up stories. There's nothing about reception, reviews, or critical commentary — no real world context at all. Yes, it would help if the arc could be put into context of the X-verse and the Marvel Universe, but that's still in story, adding it just expands the plot summary.
Are there any interviews or reviews from reliable secondary sources that whys from the writers and/or editors, actual character and/or plot analysis, sales, reader reaction, editorial/publisher promotion, and the like? If not, that goes a long way to selling Rau's argument. - J Greb (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)- Which is one reason why i nominated it in the first place, you wont be able to make this article meet the required standards. The arc is far too old to have many, if any, reviews and out of universe references. Rau's talk 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's an assumption, and not really a valid one.
Most on-line 'zines keep fairly extensive archives. And there are also physical publications that can be found, both targeted at the readers and the retailers. It's reasonable to tag the article for maintenance and give the editors working on it a chance to hunt down that information. An AfD should be the last step, set up when an article has been tagged and no improvement has been seen over a reasonable time, generally months.
Further, age and limited refs aren't good arguments for skipping straight to AfD. There are many, many topics relating to fiction and entertainment that first appeared long enough ago to make finding sources hard, but not impossible. And an article can be written from a few reliable secondary sources. If there are enough to prevent plagiarism and original research, then the article is on solid ground. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's an assumption, and not really a valid one.
- Which is one reason why i nominated it in the first place, you wont be able to make this article meet the required standards. The arc is far too old to have many, if any, reviews and out of universe references. Rau's talk 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fine. Tell me how to remove my nomination and I will. That way, you can work on the article some. Then, after some time has passed, if the article has not improved, I will renominate it. Rau's talk 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- If anything, and it's a very strong if in my opinion, this article just needs to be worked on a little more to establish it's relation to other events/plots/etc to keep it from being just a summary. Deletion is not a solution to something this minor. Celarnor (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- So which of these 42 policies would this topic violate? --Pixelface (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Just because it is a major X-Men story does not mean that it gets its own article. And saying that "there are many, many more, almost just like it" is WP:POKEMON. Rau's talk 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw Decided i acted too harshly, will remove nomination to allow for time to improve the article. Rau's talk 01:40, 14 March 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.
