Talk:Diamondback (Rachel Leighton)

Brothers

Diamondback has two brothers, Ricky and Danny.

Fair use rationale for Image:Diamondback.jpg

Image:Diamondback.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DiamondbackCap.jpg

Image:DiamondbackCap.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diamondback.jpg

Image:Diamondback.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Split

This article has multiple subjects (four characters). It needs to be split into at least two articles (the unrelated character and the three related ones), three articles (the LMD covered by the Leighton article), or four articles (one for each character). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I say split Striker off, and leave the three related characters here. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 13:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about splitting off Stryker, as he really hasn't had many comic book appearances [1]. It might be his appearance in Luke Cage helps raise his profile, but his notability currently hangs on the TV series and even then I count 7 appearances [2] (although I'll grant that his influence spreads across other episodes). Leighton is the main Diamondback character and the one that really needs splitting off as her section is getting too large for this page, but I would worry that there isn't enough out-of-universe coverage of her to properly nail her notability. So I'd give a provisional "yes" to Leighton (and LMD) and a "wait and see" on Stryker. Emperor (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If Stryker isn't notable enough for encyclopedic coverage, then the content should be removed from the encyclopedia. If it's notable enough, then a split to a stub is fine. One article shouldn't cover multiple encyclopedia topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We have hundreds of articles like this on characters who share the same name, some of which are notable enough to be split off to their own articles and some of them remain in the main article (see, for example, Hobgoblin (comics), which has a number of separate articles, or Wraith (Marvel Comics), which is self-contained). Just being included on this page isn't enough to establish notability, this is the kind of article (like the list of minor characters articles) that allows us to include characters who aren't on there own notable. It is the new article on Stryker that has to demonstrate its notability on its own merits.

The usual way of doing this, starting on a page like this, is to expand the relevant section and add sources in until the section reaches a critical mass and is then in a decent shape that would make for a good article when split off. I think Leighton's section is reaching this point, but I am concerned that there isn't enough material or sources to justify a separate one for Stryker (at least at this moment in time - I wouldn't be surprised if he had more appearances in the comics following his raised profile in the TV series).

Now it may be this kind of article is best used for legacy characters (like Green Goblin or Hobgoblin (comics)) and articles on characters who just happen to share the same names should be stripped down and turned into a set index with the non-notable characters moved over to the relevant minor character articles. However, that is something that'd need a wider discussion because it would have implications for large numbers of similar articles. Emperor (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Support on dividing the Luke Cage villain between the Serpent Society villains. Just like Cottonmouth. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)