Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Negative

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 No consensus - Just counting "votes", I come up with around 11 - 9 Keep vs. redirect. (Since so few suggested delete, counting those who said redirect as second option.) While WP:CRYSTAL is true, and WP:AADD#CRYSTAL may normally be valid, enough external notice has been given the the Spider-Man: One More Day/Spider-Man: Brand New Day storylines that I don't think "notability" is arbitrarily being applied in this case. I decided on "no consensus" over "keep", because this leans the closure more in the direction of possible re-nomination if, after the initial arc has ended, the character turns out to be one which should be merged/redirected as noted in the discussion below. - jc37 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mister Negative

Mister Negative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

As the article points out, not much is known about him... New character, not notable outside the fantasy world yet. Pharmboy (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • comment I hate to AFD so quickly, but it seem apparent that notibility will not be able to be established on a brand new character, even if given another week. Pharmboy (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, i rewrote the article to bring it too comic project standard. A major character in the Spider-Man's Brand New Day retcon, and (before you say it i know its not a valid argument but i thought id mention it) there a many, many, Marvel characters profiles on wikipedia for new and under exposed characters. --- Paulley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Not to be a pain, but saying "What about $x article" is a non-argument. I would vote delete/merge on all these minor characters, from any comic/show/book/cartoon/etc. If they dont have any notability outside of that comic/venue, they don't earn an article outside of that comics article, from how I understand the WP:Notability guidelines. Some characters DO become notable outside their single use, but not new ones, not yet anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • comment, If List of Spider-Man enemies was split into sections for each villain with the more well-known/popular ones being linked off as sub articles, i would gladly merge this character into a single section along with a few other little known characters the list mentions. But as it stands there is no where to merge it too and it would seem he is going to be a long standing character in this chapter of Spider-man's comic history so deleting it would seem pointless at this juncture if he's gonna keep popping up every month (or three times a month). -- Paulley (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)]
  • Comment List of Spider-Man enemies sounds like exactly the article it should be merged to. The matter of formatting of that particular article can be changed. That has no bearing on the issue at hand, that he isn't yet notable enough to warrant his own article. The fact that the merged to article 'needs work' isn't a valid keep argument. Pharmboy (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment id truly like to do that... if we can get some help changing the list of enemies article into something manageable id merge this in there along with the likes of Spidercide (comics), Iguana (comics), Batwing (comics), and Coldheart. I am just saying wait.. what's the point in losing the information provided right now by deleting it when you can wait a week and move it to the right place. --- Paulley (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have looked into the List of Spider-Man enemies page and i am going to do a rewrite and see if i can get the article upto a position to start merging things. --- Paulley (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies --- Paulley (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Mister Negative is an important villain in the Brand New Day story and is certainly notable. Just because he doesn't exist outside of comics (at the moment) doesn't mean he's not notable. --Maestro25 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Your comment that: because he doesn't exist outside of comics is the defacto definition of not notable. Only being known in the comic and not written about in independent sources is exactly what notability is about. I think the merge is the best and likely solution, and it appears that Paulley is working hard on that now (along with several other characters). *If* he becomes notable in the following years, then it won't be an issue to start an article, but most characters do not make it to notable. Until then, they are better served in a singular article that lists ALL the enemies, and have redirects when proper. That is pretty standard policy. Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP There are articles that are very much shorter than this article that are still around. This one is only being nominated for deletion because it's a mildly short article that is new. He is a notable villain (see recent updates to the article) and more than long enough to constitute keeping it around. -Freak104 (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If notability outside the comic book world were required for an article to exist than you better be prepared to delete hundreds of comic book articles on Wikipedia that fit that bill. Furthermore, there are lots of television show episodes and characters that have their own pages (without risk of deletion) that hardly anyone knows about. Freak104 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does mean deleting a lot of articles about comic book trivia. Thanks for the reminder. - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Why should this article be deleted when other articles much shorter than it are still around? 144.92.58.223 (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per those who voted that way (although see below), or Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies until the character's notability has borne out. I will admit that I have never heard of this character before, but then he is brand new so that has something to do with it. There is something to be said for not biting the newbies, and there is also something to be said for giving a new topic some time before pulling the trigger. Yes, recentism should be avoided on Wikipedia, which is why Redirecting for now might be the better option. With that in mind, be aware that recent Featured Article Through the Looking Glass (Lost) went to AFD when it was first submitted. As far as "there are there are hundreds just like it", this is not only an argument to avoid using in AFD, but it's a bad idea in general because you might unintentionally attract ambitious deletionists to your favorite articles by making statements like that. BOZ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies. The fact that he's so new is why he doesn't need an article (at least not yet). - JasonAQuest (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
There are some articles (like your Silver Racer) that probably should be deleted, but Wikipedia being able to have articles about so many characters is why it is so widely used as a resource. Don't degrade Wikipedia by needlessly deleting articles, help Wikipedia grow into a useful internet entity by letting these articles survive. But your basis for the redirect only on how new he is has no support either. There are characters with significant articles that only had a few appearances but aren't considered for redirect because those issues are old. -Freak104 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that removing trivia from Wikipedia degrades it. This character is not notable, and the fact that it is new is why. If an older character featured in an article isn't notable either, then that article should be deleted as well. The problem is that if we give this villain of the month an article, someone will use the same argument you're using now to justify articles about some other villain of the month, making Wikipedia look like The Obsessive-Compulsive Handbook of the Marvel Universe. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing trivia helps Wikipedia. This isn't trivia. Wikipedia is useful only because it has comprehensive articles of lesser known characters. Characters who make one single appearance and have an article should have their articles deleted, but this character already has notable appearances and they have said he will appear in the future. If we delete this articles and others similar to it, Wikipedia will lose what usefulness it once had. -Freak104 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies, as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Spider-Man comics.Notability to come.--Gavin Collins (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. No independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Can i just say that i believe some people are taking this attempt to redirect the article completely out of context. We are NOT deleting all the information here, it is just being moved to another more suited place. Everything that is written, and that will be continually added as his appearances come up, will still exist on wikipedia but just on a different page. I have already merged 12 articles into List of Spider-Man enemies without a single word against or an attempted to revert.. the fact of the matter is, if this character had not been in a comic book in the last two months most of you putting keep would not have not cared enough to enter into this discussion. To be truly honest i fall in that category, as you can see at the top, my first instinct was to keep, but if you take time to actually think about it you would soon realize that putting this information in a collective article is far better for a character with no out of universe context. When the time comes and Mister Negative gets recognition in TV shows, computer games, novels or has some significant effect on the Marvel U then it is a simple process to move the article out once again. --- Paulley (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC) (#stepping down from soapbox#)
  • I see what you're saying, which is why I said what I said above. :) BOZ (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well good.. i just think some people dont understand that redirecting, and converting list articles to allow this type of merging, is being done to save this article (and others like it) from deletion. As Martin Prince would say "individually we are weak, like a single twig. But as a bundle we form a mighty faggot" lol! --- Paulley (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep, merge and redirect is a legitimate way of saving the information in an article, and if we want to keep the content it's better than letting it get deleted.  :) I had to learn that the hard way. I'd personally rather keep in most cases, but let's be realistic.  ;) BOZ (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's the first time I've seen WP:NPOV cited as a keep reason. Could you explicate a little on the connection there? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Could you explicate a little more on your confusion? I am unclear as to what needs developing further. Hiding T 18:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What does having a neutral point of view have to do with whether an article is notable enough to keep? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you asking me how an encyclopedia written from a neutral point of view determines inclusion standards? And when did a deletion debate become focussed on whether an article was notable enough to keep? I thought it was whether it was within our domain as an encyclopedia. Is this a suitable topic for an encyclopedia? Would this charcater be covered in any encyclopedia? A comics encyclopedia? If the answer is yes, then we should cover the topic. And the answer is yes. This character is likely to be covered in some form of encyclkopedia, and since Wikipedia is not paper that means we do not have to limit ourselves to regurgitating Britannica. I know Wikipedia is not an indiscrimate collection of information, but the intention of that is that we do not cover topics which would not be covered encyclopedically, for example travel reports, plot summaries, dictionary definitions and so on and so forth. It does not apply to anything which contradicts our main purpose, which is being an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This article improves that encyclopedia. Therefore we should keep it. Some people may not like it. Some people may not find it to their taste. Some people may point to guidelines which support their view. Others will point to policies which support theirs. There is a reason WP:N is a guideline and not a policy. It does not have the wide community support of a policy. It is not a fundamental principle in the way that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is. It is simply a guide as to what to write about, aimed at new editors. It is not a rulebook since Wikipedia has no rules. I hope that helps. Hiding T 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the page should stay. He could become more recurring like the upcoming Menace villain. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Menace (comics) is an example of another villain that should be merge the fact that they may become a recurring bad guy still does not justify the need for a separate article. --- Paulley (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between a list entry and an article? Hiding T 18:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guidebook; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept/character in the Marvel Universe. These pages, at this point in time, are very short and are unlikely to be expanded after their adjoining story arcs, it makes sense to merge them with a list page that covers the broader topic. --- Paulley (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't address my point. 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 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Final comment from nominator Although Wikipedia isn't paper, it still has guidelines for inclusion. Why not an article on me? Or you? Or why isn't there an article called List of left handed Latino people who don't like yams? Yam, Latinos and Leftys are all notable. It isn't about running out of room, it is about a quality standard to be "an encyclopedia". That is the whole idea on inclusion: if it isn't notable as a stand alone article (in this case, clearly too new to be 'notable') then include it in a more general article, such as the newly created List of Spider-Man enemies. As the nom, I agree with the MERGE and think several people have worked hard on it to allow inclusion of all these enemies, while preventing more AFDs in the future. Until a character is notable enough for their own article, this groups them together very nicely. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Why not an article on you? Have you read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV? They should illustrate why we cannot have an article on you, and also why we should have an article here. We cannot have an article on you because we cannot verify any of the information about you to a reliable degree. How can we even begin to ascertain your name? However, we can ascertain many things about this published character, we can source many things, and we can write encyclopedically about the character. This is not about any perceived quality standard regarding what "an encyclopedia" is, which I assume is different to an actual encyclopedia. This is about writing to an encyclopedic standard on topics within the framework of our policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. If we can do that, it matters little if that is done in a list or in a standalone article. Those are editorial choices which we should not seek to force upon each other, and nor should we suggest that one view is superior to the other. There are merits in both arguments, but for me I believe that a standalone article suits our purpose better than a list in building the encyclopedia. It allows better use of our features and better presentation of the material. Notability is a red herring. Merging is simply a choice. This debate to my mind should be closed as out of process, to be honest. If the nominator is not seeking deletion, they should simply start a merge discussion instead. This is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion. Already the very nomination of this article appears to have driven one editor away. We should not bite each other and we should act in good faith. If the nominator has no wish to see the article deleted, I do not understand how we are in good faith discussing the issue of a merge here. These decisions have consequences, and we need to examine those consequences. What is better, that we discuss matters in a collegiate manner and sometimes accept that there is no agreement and agree to disagree, accepting that at this point in time our solution is not the implemented one, or do we game the system to create the determined goal at the expense of others? Wikipedia is not a battleground. We should not bite each other. This article was created 17 days ago and not once was anything posted to the article talk page. The system appears to have failed here. Wikipedia is not a game. Hiding T 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is articles for deletion, which means we discuss the articles. I reserve the right to be pursueded that merging is a viable option, particularly after the merged TO article has been improved during this AFD. I would also disagree with your conclusion that the system "failed". This AFD is 17 days old, over 3x the normal length, which I personally take as a sign of great faith on the part of the administrators. As to my good faith, if you feel I nominated this article in bad faith, please take administrative action. If being open minded and willing to compromise after hearing both sides of discussion is a violation of policy, I will be happy to plead guilty as charged. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
At no point did I aver you listed this article in bad faith. Further than that, I don't agree with blocking people I am in dispute with. My point is this: AFD should be the last resort, not the first. This article was created and listed for deletion within 17 minutes. There's no discussion on the talk page for other approiaches, no templates applied to the article, this article simply wasn't given a chance. If you truly believe you considered all other options before you came to afd, I'll believe you. But I think that nominating an article for deletion 17 minutes after creation without posting to the talk page on other options, without discussing with the creator or without looking at other options is poor form. You happen to disagree, and that's fine. But the Wikipedia I signed up to wasn't one where deletion was the first resort for solving problems. I happen to believe that we should not bite newcomers. Hiding T 14:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed; that does tend to scare them away and I mentioned the same thing above (notice how the editor who created the aritlce hasn't made any new edits in 2 weeks). BOZ (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • delete or redirect to list of characters. There are zero independent references to establish notability of this particular character. The only two references not to the comic books do not contain the word "Negative", even incidentally. If future developments make the character more notable, then a new article can be split off. Argyriou (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies. If he becomes a major villain on the level of Venom or The Joker, then it might make sense to give him his own page. But so far he's just a minor opponent of Spiderman. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 04:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
  • Redirect to List of Spider-Man enemies until outside sources are found in which case the article can be safely un-redirected. No RS, no article, no drama period.--Lenticel (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • You believe that building a consensus is bad for Wikipedia? Hiding T 14:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, say I. It could turn out that this villain becomes one of the biggest smash-hits of Spider-Man's career...or not. Who knows. But I say keep.SaliereTheFish (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, this article doesn't appear to me to violate any policies. --Pixelface (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, mergeing into a list of enemies to one character in particluar(Spider-Man) is near impossible for Marvel Characters. All characters interact with each other and bounce from hero to villian and back again all the time. Updating which character appears on which list of another character is the most counter productive thing one could possibly suggest. -- 69.182.199.231 (talk) 08:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment The thing is this character has not been seen outside the Spider-Man comics... nor the other minor characters that have been merged with the list. IF he did start appearing in other character books and started to become known outside of this one characters history then that would be a good reason to split him out of the list. --- Paulley (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
ReplyThose merges were done by you without any discussion or attempt to build consensus. You can't set your own precedent in order to use it in at AFD discussion -- 69.182.199.231 (talk)
Reply - wrong. Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument. As i have stated before there were no objection as the characters i merged were a few years old.. if this character had not been in recent comics this disscussion would not be happening. --- Paulley (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major character in Brand New Day storyline. There is more information available than just the small amount that goes into a list, and if we give that complete information, then due to the size of massive size of the Marvel Universe and the Spider-Man supporting cast, including villains, it is infeasible to merge all Spider-Man villains together. I further add that I believe that all major villains for the most popular comic book characters (e.g. Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) are notable. Moreover, if we merge now, this article will almost certainly be recreated within a few weeks as more information continues to be published. Mister Negative isn't a minor character in a one-shot or minor limited series; this is the featured villain of the current storyline of The Amazing Spider-Man, the longest-running and most important Spider-Man title. —Lowellian (reply) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the these pages [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and many more like it are noteworthy and are able to be stand alone articles of work. It's not like we will be merging Doc Oct and Green Goblin into the list just these more pointless pages.. and when a character reaches a certain stage of noteworthyness it will be moved back out to its redirect. Being a character in a recent storyline isnt a valid arguement for not merging believe i know cus that was what i first siad when i wanted to keep this article. --- Paulley (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's 9 Keep, 7 Redirect, 2 Delete. Not much support for a delete, which is good, but the Keep/redirect split is close. It will probably have to go based on strength of argument on this one, which is as it should be anyway.BOZ (talk) 18:14, 16 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.