Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon King (DC Comics)

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 redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D. There is a consensus that the article does not meet requirements to be stand-alone; equally there is not consensus to delete it, so redirecting and preserving the history. Black Kite (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon King (DC Comics)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish real world notability. TTN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced to subject's entry in a print encyclopedia (on the subject of comics) published by the largest publisher in the world. Print being relevant as having finite actual space, and so an implicit notability threshold is therefore communicated; size of publisher (DK, an imprint of Penguin/Random) relevant in the sense that the article is not sourced to a self-published thing written by authors and editors of uncertain credential. Ford MF (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per WP:NCOMIC: "A character or team is presumed notable and warranting of a solo article if they meet one or more of the following criteria: 3. Covered in a more than trivial manner in a published secondary source." Ford MF (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fordmadoxfraud:, I don't think you understand Wikipedia:Notability. Topics require significant coverage from third party sources in order to be suitable for Wikipedia. What you have is an almost completely in-universe article lacking any developmental material or critical reception. Simply sourcing in-universe material does not satisfy the guideline. Also see WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with User:Fordmadoxfraud that sourcing matters more than the size of the company. Big companies often have products/service that flop, but they make up for those failures through more successfully sold products/services.Knox490 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain what you mean here? I'm not sure I understand what "products that flop" have to do with the deletion debate. Ford MF (talk) 04:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:GNG as the article has enough sources and there are plenty more out there such as The Encyclopedia of Supervillains. The topic should therefore be kept for further development per numerous policies including: WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. WP:PRESERVE does not apply, as non-notability is an insurmountable problem per WP:CANTFIX._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of WP:CANTFIX are you referring to here? That appears to categorically be intended for other types of article issue beyond notability, and describes clear cut cases where deletion is preferable to inclusion, none of which seem to apply here. The article being discussed here is not in scope of WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, WP:NOT, WP:UNDUE, WP:COPYVIO, or WP:BLP. Which one specifically do you thinka pplies here? Ford MF (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is definitely in the scope of WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTPLOT. It reads entirely as a summary of a fictional character and his appearances, without any attempt to "discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Definitely not NOT. For example, the lead of the article contains no plot at all. It has details of the authors, publisher, first appearance, casting and the like. These are all reasonably valid facts about the character which we should expect to be preserved in our coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All-Star Squadron or Stargirl (TV series). FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the minimum info to List of DC −Comics characters: D. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D. There are no sources that demonstrate any real-world notability for the character. The article is almost entirely plot summary, and none of the sources delve in depth on anything aside from that. If the character's presence in the upcoming Stargirl show ends up generating some sources that actually demonstrate real world notability, no prejudice against restoring it to a proper, stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: D where Dragon King is already listed - Epinoia (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2019 (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.