Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton

Add links
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. Black Kite (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Barton[edit]

Breeze Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, only sourced to primary sources, wikis and an unreliable website. ProD removed without good reason and without improvements. No good sources seem to exist either, only listings in comics databases. Fram (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep For the love of God... Joefromrandb (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Religion is not a reason to keep or delete articles. Any policy or guideline-nased reasons? Fram (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be useful to know exactly how many comics this superhero has appeared in. Does anyone know? Benboy00 (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article just seems imperfect and the worst case would be merger into another page such as Daring Mystery Comics per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Warden (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How will you check whether the information you suggest to merge is in any way or shape reliable and correct? There are no reliable sources. Fram (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There seem to be adequate reliable sources for the essential facts, which do not seem to be in dispute. Warden (talk) 08:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The author? The special powers of Barton? Whether he lived in Earth-4040 or not? Fram (talk) 09:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can read about it in the Daring Mystery comic book itself. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The valuable 1940 American comic book that the Singaporean library let you borrow? Right... And these early comics are usually anonymous anyway, so where did you get the author from? According to Comicvine (not reliable, but used in the article anyway, "Breeze Barton was created by an unknown artist and writer"... Other sources give E.C. Stoner as the creator of Barton. Fram (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's some detailed coverage at The Comic Detective which says that E.C. Stoner did the inking for Jack Binder's pencils. We're talking about the Golden Age here, which is the early days of the comics and pre-Internet. Researching this stuff may well involve visits to libraries or special collections. Warden (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Detailed coverage" being one sentence in a blog? I'm quite aware that we are talking pre-internet and early days, I've written articles on pre-WWII comic strips here. I had no problem finding some significant coverage from reliable sources for the notable ones though. 13:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • The detail clarifies E. C. Stoner's role in the topic, which was the point you were querying. It is interesting to note that he was a negro and is celebrated as the first such to work in comics. As this artist seems quite important in breaking down a racial barrier, I have started an article about him too. I trust that no-one will hold this against Bonkers. Warden (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic conversation hatted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the oppose-badgering begins. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, what do you expect when your "keep" irrationale is "For the love of God..."? If you have nothing useful to contribute to a discussion, just stay out of it. Fram (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have badgered the first two opposes. What do I expect? I expect you to badger each and every oppose, because that's what obstructionist deletionists do. How cute that the nominator wants "keep" voters to "just stay out of the conversation". Joefromrandb (talk) 10:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I won't badger opposes that present something resembling a serious reason for their "keep". Yours, like the one below, was just a waste of bits though. Even heard of "not a votecount"? But thanks for putting in the "obstructionist deletionists" part, that makes your agenda perfectly clear and gives even less reason to take your opinion here seriously. Fram (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • The one who's agenda is perfectly clear is you. Advancing the sum of all human knowledge by attempting to keep as much information as possible out of the encyclopedia. This nomination is plain disruptive. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's fine if you want to vote keep, but be aware that this is not a popularity based vote, its a reason based vote. Your vote of "keep" with the reason being "for the love of god" is just going to be ignored by the closing admin. Benboy00 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above response. Benboy00 (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On closer examination, I find the website is almost the textbook definition of a self-published source, whose mission is to print every comic superhero character ever without discrimination or concern over their notability to the world at large. You might argue about it being reliable coverage, but it's not independent or significant coverage, and you need all three to count towards notability. And even if it was, you'd need more sources anyway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with DMC. Mainly sourced to a primary source that I doubt the editor has ever seen. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the primary source. There's this magical place called the public library, where you can find comics of all kinds, you know? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a librarian, I am aware of the public library. I am also aware that the public library generally does not allow you to borrow comic books worth thousands of dollars, as you claimed here. Gamaliel (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I borrowed was this book. In it, you can find the issue on Breeze Barton. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should have cited that book in the article and mentioned that book when that citation was brought up in the DYK discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the subject does turn up on a google book search including the comic he debuted in being valued at $12,000. He's a subject with a fictional biography which is best treated in a daughter article separate from the parent one due to subject matter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one said he wasn't verifiable. But the source you added literally just mentions him as part of that comic and says nothing about Breeze Barton, adding no notability for the subject at all. The value of the comic book is not dependent on Breeze Barton. Where is the notability from reliable sources? Fram (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Fram said. The source you reported, and indeed the search, is the exact same one I mentioned earlier. But the coverage amounts to just one line with the comic and its value. That's it. Now, if there was a paragraph, or a separate breakout section talking about why being valued 12K was significant and important, then we'd be onto something. But there isn't. As for being "best treated in a daugher article" - maybe you'd have a point if Daring Mystery Comics was 50K in size, and doing a content fork was a valid option. But it isn't, and it isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the source is little more than point form anyway, so is not going to have reams of info, in this case just listing 3-4 key entities that first appear in the issue. Given what I know of hunting for other obscure topics, they don't often turn up with simple google or google book searches. I suspect, given the magazine is a key precursor of a highly notable comic line, that more has been written somewhere that would take some time or borrowing/purchasing of material books to uncover. I don't have the time or inclination to do that but am making a best guess on what I see before me. Hence my ideal is to keep as I have described. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, that's pretty much the same conclusion I came to, I just went with "Redirect" instead of "Keep". A redirect doesn't nuke the earlier content, so as and when more sources turn up, it can be turned back into a full article at that point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok for me. Ginosti (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unremarkable character, lack of sourcing, the usual for this kind of stuff. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 10:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to DMC as above. Non-notable character individually, sourcing is weak ES&L 14:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd suppose the nominator would also like to nominate all the characters listed here. (See template below) They all share the same "problems" this one has. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoldenAge

    • Do you really think that ridiculous hyperbole will help your case here? Do you truly believe that the notability of Breeze Barton is comparable to that of, e.g. Wonder Woman, Batman or Captain America, to name just these three? No, they definitely don't share the same problems. If you truly believe that they do, then you have a serious WP:COMPETENCE problem. Otherwise, you are just trolling. Not a smart thing to do in your situation... Fram (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to an appropriate article. The topic has nothing to establish actual notability, so an article is unnecessary until that becomes possible. TTN (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unnecessary? An article on Winston Churchill isn't "necessary" either. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. Having trouble seeing the specific notability of the character (as opposed perhaps, to publications that they've appeared in), but that it was the "List of Marvel Comics characters" articles are for! Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Breeze_Barton&oldid=1143397804"