Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Special Executive

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. Closing per Liz's comment during the last relist. No further discussion has taken place and there is no clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 21:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special Executive[edit]

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

Special Executive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively minor group of villains from Comics. Can't find any notable sources, and the group is basically covered by Technet's article. (And that article's notability is already debateable.) I propose merging with Technet for the time being. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some coverage in Moore bios: -
    On top of the sources already in the article that's a lot more notable than a good chunk of the Marvel pollution even before looking at Amazing Heroes, Wizard (at least one of AM's interviews in Wizard fingers the SE as the reason he got pissed with Marvel), Speakeasy etc (I'm hip-deep in Fleetway so not sure when I'll be able to look at that). I'd say Keep or at worst merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/beep-the-meep-and-9-other-classic-doctor-who-comic-characters-that-could-appear-in-the-tv-series/ We Got This Covered clickbait listicle, but shows up on GNews BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: more Lance Parkin stuff, including quotes about creation by Moore taken from things not on Google - https://comicsforum.org/2012/09/05/doctor-who-and-the-genesis-of-alan-moore-by-lance-parkin/ BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mentions on CBR and Comicon: -
    -https://www.cbr.com/jaspers-warp-alan-moore-x-men/
    -https://www.comicon.com/2023/03/18/art-from-arts-sake-200-a-celebration-of-the-daredevils-at-40/
    -https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/5-alan-moore-comics-ready-for-the-watchmen-treatment/
    While not in-depth, that they can be mentioned by so many notable sources suggests they're worth a page.
    -https://lanceparkin.wordpress.com/2014/11/04/alan-moore-interview-part-iii-scary-dog-sun-dodgers-rob-liefeld-urinals/ - another AM interview with a nugget of information in it.
    The in-depth stuff and tying it together is surely what Wikipedia's here for. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable fancruft that fails WP:GNG. Lacks reliable secondary sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (edited) Lacks reliable secondary sources to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say here I'm a little interested in finding out why the sources listed both in the article and here aren't reliable, or at least enough to argue for a merge. There's a worrying trend on Wikipedia for subjecting articles on fiction to a different standard to many others (random villages, obscure one-off aircraft, unremarkable sporting seasons etc), including a rising use of "fancruft" as a drive-by pejorative. Not saying that's what happens here, but some conversation about
    • a) how Tor, two Alan Moore biographies, Modern Masters and Bleeding Cool aren't reliable secondary sources
    • and b) what's "fancrufty" about the article and how that could be improved
    would very much be appreciated to ensure further effort on fictional articles doesn't go to waste.
    BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:42, an article needs significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. It is incredibly common for editors to throw a reliable source into an AfD simply because it has a sentence or two mentioning the subject and then call it proof of notability.
    Saying that one-off aircraft or random villages are subjected to a different standard is textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pop culture stuff simply gets more attention because the material has more fans. Very few people have likely visited *random village in the middle of nowhere*.
    "Fancruft" is another way of saying "this article is entirely or almost entirely plot". Non-fancrufty articles minimize the plot elements and maximize the characters' reception and importance in the real world, if any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One example of a lack of SIGCOV is looking at the Tor article. Tor offers significant coverage of the specific "Black Sun Rising" comic, but not the Special Executive themselves. Does this suggest perhaps some things might be split from Doctor Who Magazine? Perhaps, but we're talking about the actual comic here. Characters from the comic are different and not discussed in great detail. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, typing while typing. So a potential answer would be to merge to List of Doctor Who comic stories, rather than outright delete as you and @Shooterwalker have advocated. Or to do an article on "Black Sun Rising" and mention the SE in it, which seems ridiculously counter-intuitive and counter to any other media coverage on Wikipedia. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that could be a possible ATD. Problem is there is no proof that the comics themselves are notable, and Doctor Who Magazine is written in such a fannish way that it's hard to figure out anything concrete. But if you could prove that the original comic or comics was actually standalone notable, it would be a viable target for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps to find a consensus, I would accept a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But the Tor source and Modern Masters are both quite in-depth and not a sentence or two, same with the Lance Parkin books. Even counting the Parkin books as one, that's three in-depth reliable sources, and just from what can be looked up on Google. Again, a merge as minimum seems tenable, though the article could be reinforced with the aforementioned sources to be standalone by most standards.
    With respect, OtherStuffExists is another thing that seems to be lapsing into overuse and a dismissive term to excuse the fact that poor-quality, low-notability articles have been left to fester on Wikipedia for years and yet it's only when people try to improve them AfDs and the like tend to be triggered. Saying "yeah a load of Wikipedia is shit but this less shit bit needs to be deleted *now*!!!!" seems like an unhelpful position to take. That's the sort of attitude that led the Special Executive article sitting there for 13 years tagged for various source reasons and all but unsourced, but then when someone comes in and puts some work into addressing that it gets caught up in someone's mass prod and people who haven't given a fig about the subject before suddenly have strong opinions. No offense to anyone, but that policy seems absurd when applied to this case. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of it can be down to shifting consensus where previously articles that might have been assumed to simply need editing and expansion are now realized to be unsalvageable. So, while it seems like the article may have been unacceptable for all of those 13 years, it may have just been thought of as in need of a bit of extra work before. Per WP:ARTICLEAGE, consensus can shift. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also the fact that people don't want to sift through mountains of fannish content to find the bad stuff. Maybe they aren't interested in nominating the particular articles themselves, or are active somewhere else, but when it comes up for a vote, they will still follow policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So... now that the article has been moved towards acceptability it's the time to call it as unsalvageable? Again, both that and the haste to outright delete the article strike me as the wrong way of doing things, and very off-putting to anyone looking to contribute to Wikipedia going forward. What's the point in adding sources or other content to extant articles if it's just going to get arbitrarily deleted whenever someone goes on a tagging rampage? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its the editor's job to decide whether the article is likely to be deleted. If it's got very solid sourcing, then it will probably withstand the so-called "tagging rampage." The sources are all listed there for everyone to see. If its sourcing isn't solid, checking for WP:SIGCOV should probably be a first priority before adding a great deal of content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so do all the research no-one else has bothered with *first* and then just write it off and don't bother because someone might quibble about it some random point down the line? Again, that seems obstructive to the ongoing good of the project, potentially intimidating to any new editors or anyone who decides to improve past procedural negligence and, frankly, laziness (IIRC I either found the page through the list of clean-up required comic articles or found the Jaspers' Warp page on the same list and followed to Special Executive, I forget the order as it's not important; therefore that no-one else bothered to do anything about it either way for multiple years, despite having ample opportunity to do so). Some areas of Wikipedia seem desperately short of enthusiastic, knowledgeable editors and it would be a shame if a dogmatic approach where recent edits are held to a higher set of standards than older ones contributed to that.
    Modern Masters is solid, but naturally doesn't come up fully searchable on Google (and nor should it as profit margins for that sort of thing must be wafer-thin). Same goes for the Moore biogs; all come up on Google Books, which is one of the things editors are suggested to use to find sources. The sources are, IMHO, robust enough to pass and probably shouldn't have been tagged as AfD so rashly without some sort of intermediate discussion on a talk page or via notability tags. Again, where was this rush to delete the article a year ago when it was shit, and had been tagged as shit for some time? That someone didn't bother to check it for decades or didn't care enough to take it to AfD then strikes me as a flawed explanation, however many principles can be used to excuse it.
    Pokelego's spate of tagging crashed the AfD software, and was possibly bad faith as there's little sign of BEFORE being done for many of the articles, and no sign of adding anything to the discussion beyond the nominations. His/her/their behaviour means I'm going to lose too much sleep describing it as a "rampage", if I'm honest. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to refer to WP:SOURCESEXIST in this case. People can claim sources are "out there" until they're blue in the face, but if they are unable to prove it when an AfD nomination comes up, then it's not notable. Could they be in print somewhere, as you stated? Perhaps, but whoever made the article didn't bother to look for them. There's no rule that says articles can't get a do-over as a draft if sources are later found. Right now, the demonstrated sources don't seem to show notability for the characters. The spate of nominations was disruptive but not provably done in bad faith as for the most part the nominated articles indeed appear to be minor and trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a pass for sources when rewriting it and what I found on the first pass seemed to justify the article, what with massively improving it over the version tagged with maintenance tags everyone ignored for a decade-plus because they "didn't bother" to do anything about it either way. At the time there seemed no need to dig into print archives any further than had already been done. That someone would declare them unsatisfactory having taken no previous interest in the article was not something factored in at the time; I apologise profusely for not anticipating that by editing the article and attempting to improve it I was actively moving it towards deletion, and for not having my entire physical archive in one location.
    IIRC, I updated the article with materials I had found when working on Captain Britain, hence the focus on that side of things. Having gleaned what I could from that material and moved on to other projects, returning Marvel UK-related material to storage in favour of other stuff. Again, seeing as the largely unsourced article had sat tagged and unchallenged for 15 years and I merely added further sources to it, an objection 10 weeks later by someone who'd never cared before was not something I anticipated.
    FWIW, @Pokelego999 is having access problems; he/she/they have posted to my talk page User talk:BoomboxTestarossa#Response to the current discussion in Special Executive's AfD on the subject. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - recent improvements by BoomboxTestarossa show the potential for this topic, but if consensus is against keeping then a merge seems more reasonable than deletion. Not sure where exactly it would be merged if necessary, but they are mentioned the most at Jaspers' Warp so that is a possibility. BOZ (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as those advocating Keep are open to Merging but there are two different Merge targets suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect since this is still missing any reception/analysis despite claimed improvements, and I am not seeing WP:SIGCOV in sources above that goes beyond some plot summary. Feel free to ping me if I missed some good source and I'll reconsider my vote, but right now this still looks like WP:FANCRUFT with plot summary and little else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. Since there was a bit of improvement but still no reception/analysis, I'd also say merge for the 'publication history' (to Doctor Who Magazine I guess). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a Moore biography as another source.Rjjiii (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another source after looking through this discussion. Rjjiii (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added another source, 1980s dual interview with Alan Moore and Chris Claremont. Rjjiii (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On page 68, Parkin (2001) gives this info which could be worked into the publication history: To coincide with the arrival of the Special Executive in Captain Britain, their first appearance in the Time Lord strips were reprinted, slightly edited to downplay the link to Doctor Who, in The Daredevils issues 5-7 (May-July 1983). Issue 5 also has a text page from Moore re-introducing his creations. Also, BoomboxTestarossa, you suggested Parkin above and I've had a chance to track down and add those two bios to the sources. Do you have any other suggestions for print sources? Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly not specifically enough to cite in the next few weeks; I have read an interview where either Moore or Davis discussed a little about the group in relation to the former's fallout with Marvel UK, including the unusual British copyright law that allowed Moore to retain ownership of them, and him quitting Doctor Who strips in support of Steve (no relation) Moore. However, whether than was in Speakeasy, Modern Masters, Kimota, Amazing Heroes or even Wizard I am afraid I can't recall, and I do not have those materials to hand and probably won't until possibly August. I really should have nailed more down when I was working on the Miracleman pages as the sources overlap, but sadly didn't think it was a priority at the time, for which I apologise.
    • In case it's lost in the debate, one of the links is a Lance Parkin interview (https://comicsforum.org/2012/09/05/doctor-who-and-the-genesis-of-alan-moore-by-lance-parkin/) that's actually fairly well cited even if the website itself seems to not necessarily be notable.
    • The Daredevils #5 might well be worth a look; while a Marvel title a mixture of British culture and the magnificent Bernie Jaye meant the magazine's text features were often very candid (it ran an essay where Moore picked apart Stan Lee), though whether the SE page covered that I can't remember. I have the complete run but again my next storage run is a while off.
    I feel there is the potential to move the article away from being all plot due to the group's short but catfight-filled history; there's the pre-professional creation; the being jammed into a Doctor Who strip for one of the medium's most famous and acclaimed writers earliest professional gigs; the first of many, many of said writer's spats with a publisher; the Captain Britain appearances; and Alan Davis reconfiguring the group as the Technet around Moore's ownership (not to mention Moore belatedly selling the characters, though I believe it's unclear if this happened in 1994 or 2001). With the right sources that's got to be a paragraph or so of non-plot content. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't apologize for that; even if you're outvoted isn't there an option to temporarily move the page to draft or user space for improvements? I've worked in the references that I could find and will un-watch this page, but feel free to {{ping}} me anytime. Rjjiii (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I'm thinking a cookie-cutter merge (with maybe a little compression; I remember not liking the "Unconfirmed members" bit at the time but didn't feel confident enough to gut it, while the list of members itself could probably be converted into a paragraph) to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations with a redirect might be a fair compromise in the meantime, assuming that once an AfD is filed we're locked into a hard decision. My objection is largely to the idea of flat delete; FWIW as noted above, the nominator didn't even mean to put the article forward for outright deletion. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing any consensus here so the options are to close this discussion as No consensus or give this discussion another week. Another admin is free to close this early if you can see a consensus here which I've missed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 14 July 2023 (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/Special_Executive&oldid=1166481037"