Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uni-Mind

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 redirect to Eternals (comics). RL0919 (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uni-Mind

[edit]

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

Uni-Mind (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)

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't had that discussion yet. There haven't been any arguments, yet. Nominator's rationale was just "Non-notable" (which, if true, is sufficient; not complaining, just that it's not a highly developed argument yet), the other "votes" have basically been people nodding their heads. I'd like to see a bit more rigor before we throw other editors' work in the trash.
So the argument I'm laying out is that it looks to probably meet the WP:GNG. This remains up in the air. We've got some ref-finding and ref-vetting to do here, lads and lasses, so lets roll up our sleeves. We can always relist, there's no hurry, the important thing is to get this right.
Another argument in favor of keeping the article is that the "votes" so far are mostly for redirecting to Eternals (comics). There is a fair amount material about the Uni-Mind in that article, but 1) there is less, and 2) it is scattered here and there around that large article, and 3) there's no infobox with a picture of the thing, who created it, and so forth. And just to point out the obvious, this article does have links to Eternals (comics). It's not like the reader can't read both articles if she wants. So... converting the article to a redirect, you are degrading the reader's experience because... because why, exactly? Hmnh? Isn't that kind of an important question?
Also FWIW, timing. They are apparently making a major-studio movie with these "Eternals" people, and this "Uni-Mind" will maybe be in it. So kind of an awkward time to be deleting it. Herostratus (talk) 02:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This and this aren't even close to being independent, reliable sources showing notability as the first is nothing but a list of comics the character appeared in and the latter is a page from the official Marvel site. The other three sources are nothing more than brief rundowns of the Eternals in general, describing the Uni-Mind in only in terms of WP:PLOT, and not demonstrating any sort of real-world notability. In fact, if anything, those sources just strengthen my argument for Redirection, as they pretty much show that the Uni-mind is not independently notable from the Eternals in general. Rorshacma (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good points! Let's hop in a little deeper and see what's what. Fleshing out the bare links I threw up earlier, let's see what we get.
  • Den of Geek. Content is about three sentences, plus there are some panels from the comic. It's not a lot, but it's a start toward constructing an article. Den of Geek has an article here and anybody wanting to vet its reliablilty and notability can start there. The article is by Marc Buxton. Buxton has written quite a lot for Comic Book Resources, which has an article here and seems to be a pretty big and professional organization, and Buxton demonstrates exepertise in this area and is active in the field.
  • CMRO, you mentioned. It's got just a little bit of info, such as the date of of the first issue and who created the entity (Jack Kirby, mostly), and list of appearances, This is not a lot, but it's useful info for the "Publication History" section, and for finding out who has drawn and inked and written this Uni-Mind person. So it's useful. CMRO looks to be a one-man operation buy Travis Starnes, who is nobody special, but they do point us to online versions of the comics where we can vet for ourselves if their information is correct (seems to be), and these online versions (which we can't link to directly) are hosted by Marvel itself so they are surely accurate. There's no notability conferred by this source tho.
  • this one is CBR, whom we already talked about. It is by Tim Adams. There is not much there there, tho -- couple sentences.
  • here we have comicbook.com, which I don't know who they are they are (they don't have an article here, but search gives 1,725 instances of the string "comicbook.com" here, most surely being ref cites, and they're a professional-looking outfit, if that means anything. The article is by Russ Burlingame; judge for yourself how expert he is. There's a couple-few sentences in this source, but they're meaty. We are making progress.
  • next up we've got Marvel itself, which is gold standard for reliability I guess. There's a couple of tiny factoids is all, tho. Slim pickings, as you noted.
OK that's that... so hey, what about books? First book returned is "Kirby Five-Oh! Celebrating 50 Years of the King of Comics". It is by John Morrow, and its published by his little house, TwoMorrows Publishing, which you can read about him there. There's not a lot there, but there's enough for a nice quote maybe. "John Morrow describes Kirby's incarnation of the Uni-Mind as as 'just a stylized floating brain which isn't terribly impressive' but applauds his skill in suggesting the 'vague illusion of a face' without actually drawing one." Something like that. Artistic analysis. If John Morrow is anybody worth quoting. He was asked by DC to write the intro for a couple of their books, so maybe.
OK, I'm out, for now, it's late! You guys's turn, let's see what y'all can come up with. We're making good progress! See if you can top me, let's make it a contest. Herostratus (talk) 08:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm hearing from this is that reliable secondary sources are not providing ongoing, in depth coverage specifically about uni-mind. what they are doing is devoting, at most, a few sentences while discussing the Eternals. Should we not follow their lead?--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hear you. So, the baseline standard is the General notability guideline (GNG). If an article meets the GNG it is "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Not proven, but presumed, so the burden would tend to fall on the person wanting to hide or destroy the information.
The GNG is actually maddeningly vague, but it says that the coverage has to be:
  1. In sources (plural). I've always taken that to mean "two or more", and I think most people do. It doesn't require 7 sources or 12, and it doesn't say anything about "more than two", so: two. At least.
  2. In reliable sources. That's explained at the GNG, and if you want to vet the reliability of these sources -- how confident we can be that they provide accurate information, and what the source of that confidence is -- we can vet each one those grounds, individually. I personally am OK with most of these sources so far. (IMO it's also good, for establishing notability, if the sources are not really obscure, altho the GNG doesn't say that.)
  3. Finally, these multiple reliable (and notable) sources must provide significant coverage. Here's where the GNG leaves us mostly on our own. It only says that a entire book about the subject is significant coverage, and a passing mention in part of a single sentence is not significant coverage. Anything between is up for debate I guess, but a good de facto standard might be something like "sufficient material to create a decent useful article of reasonable size, up to reasonable Wikipedia standards for an article", meaning certainly more than a stub.
Wikipedia:Stub says "There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub... Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text. AutoWikiBrowser is frequently set to automatically remove stub tags from any article with more than 500 words." Wikipedia:Article size says "If an article has remained at less then 1024 bytes for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page" if it can't be expanded. Wikipedia:Size comparisons says that the Wikipedia's mean article size is 640 words. Wikipedia:Words per article says 400 words, but they may using a rubric that includes redirects and so forth, or something.
Right now the article is about 483 words, 20 sentences, 2,555 characters (not including the infobox). That is short. It is shorter than than average article. But then, half our articles are going to be shorter than median (not sure about mean... we have a lot of short articles and also some very long ones, so the median size is probably higher than the mean, I guess).
(Whether we should have fewer, but longer, articles is a matter of opinion, and far outside the scope of this discussion; but anyway, we don't, and that is the de facto standard for now I guess.)
Anyway, right now the article is a typical short article, like millions of our short articles. It is more than a stub. . Can that size and level of detail be maintained? I'm not sure... probably, depending on various things. And remember, we're not sure finding good sources yet. Pitch in here, many hands make light work! Herostratus (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAF & WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If you want to play throwing WP: page titles at each other, can I play too? WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WP:ENC ("Wikipedia... incorporates elements of... specialized encyclopedias"). WP:INCLUDE. OK I'm up 3-2, your turn. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very nice of you to read and understand them. In your paragraphs of honestly quit pretentious text, you skip about while avoiding actually talking about anything. You address no concerns other than affirming your own mindset. Articles need to contain more than plot information. Neither of these AfDs you're prancing about in have any such information. There are certainly times for walls of text, but yours are just hiding that you have nothing to say. I don't want to be rude, but this is just getting silly coming back to a book that addresses nothing each time. TTN (talk) 21:11, 14 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uni-Mind&oldid=916294142"