Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Felicia (pseudonym) (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was DELETE. (THis is a difficult call. Metamagician3000 argues that an AfD should not be overturned even if a 'wrong' result. Whilst that is an interesting proposal, it is not policy - and I'd view it is a far too fixed notion of process. Content considerations are always greater than procedural niceties. Further, the fist afd was not exactly exhausive in its consideration. When that argument is rejected, I see only one vote that disputes the deletion nomination, so I call a consensus to delete. -Doc ^ask? 15:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Felicia (pseudonym)

Second nomination for deletion. Was previously AFD'd and voted for keeping. While the verifiability of her existence is not in question, the notability of such a person is. The article makes the claim that "Felicia" was indirectly responsible for then-Marvel publisher Bill Jemas' removal. That in itself is not verifiable, and without it, "Felicia" loses all notability. She was not a journalistic source. She was an informant for Rich Johnston, who claims for himself the label of rumour-monger, who warns his readers never to take his column at face value, meaning the information he publishes is not reliable (even when it turns out to be true). "Felicia"'s impact in the practices of Marvel Comics was negligible at best. I consider this article to be nothing more than a piece of fancruft. Delete. --Pc13 10:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Kimchi.sg 10:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - nothing has changed to justify overturning the previous AfD outcome even if it was "wrong" in some sense. I think that if an AfD leads to an article being kept that should normally be the end of it, unless some new evidence is available or something has actually changed. Metamagician3000 11:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Given the way the previous nomination was handled, I'm surprised with the result. Basically, the deletion proposal was "Let's delete this", and the argument against was "Let's not", without anyone failing to explain why Felicia should be kept or not. --Pc13 11:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --blue520 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I was initially going to suggest a merge into the Marvel company article, but this is such a tiny blip on the radar of the company's half-century of history that such a merge would be ridiculous. At best, this would warrant maybe a line or two in Rich Johnston article, but even that's a stretch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Metamagician3000 EnsRedShirt 19:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Metamagician3000 ^BigE1977 21:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not convinced "Felicia" is non notable. Darquis 22:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Pc13. This is simply an anonymous gossip columnist in a niche press, and of not even journalistic let alone encyclopedic weight. -- Tenebrae 14:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tenebrae. -- ReyBrujo 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or at most merge to Rich Johnston. Not independently notable. -Sean Curtin 01:14, 3 May 2006 (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.