Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betty Clawman

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 keep. Looks like a relist has finally gotten us somewhere. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 02:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Clawman[edit]

[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 fails to establish notability. All the sources added after the removal of the PROD are extremely trivial coverage, some literally just her name and another only two sentences. These articles are talking about representation and using her as one of several examples. None talk about her in any critical capacity. These belong in an article talking about representation in comics, not shoved onto this page as if they talk about the character. The only source I cannot access is "Professors use comic books to teach about race," but, judging from non-specific context, that seems to have the same issue of her just being one of several characters talked about with zero commentary on the actual character. TTN (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the new sources to this article and indicated I would make efforts in the future to find additional sources and expand the article further, but the nominator immediately took it to AFD anyway, which didn't strike me as a good faith move. In any event, I think the sources already added go a long way toward indicating notability for this subject, and there are others out there that can and should allow for additional expansions. There is also some interesting commentary on this character regarding the overall representation of Aboriginals in comic books, so the coverage of this subject goes well beyond mere plot summary... — Hunter Kahn 17:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what you added, there is no particular commentary whatsoever. Using the character as one of several examples is not "significant coverage." TTN (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, you have made your opinion clear, and although I don't agree, I welcome hearing input from others. :) I will also attempt to continue expanding this if I'm able to within the timeframe of this AFD (which will be a bit of a challenge, hence why I sought more time in removing the PROD...) — Hunter Kahn 17:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Guardians. The sources regarding the character that are more than just pure plot summaries are either extremely passing (listing the character among many others as an example of something, with no actual discussion on her specifically), very brief (one of them has an entry on her that consist entirely of two sentences stating how obscure she is), or, most common, mentioning her in a discussion of the team/comic she belonged to. So, while she has no sources to indicate independent notability, a redirect to said team is logical. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that some of the non-plot elements are about the team, which is somewhat inevitable for an article about a character from a team like this, but most of that discussion is about her depiction as an Aboriginal in comic books, and what it says about the depiction of Aboriginals in general. That by definition is clearly about her and not the team (she is the only Aboriginal on the team) so I'd still argue it makes sense that content makes sense for her standalone article. — Hunter Kahn 22:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The few sources that talk about her specifically in the context of being an Aboriginal character in comic books fall into the first two categories I mentioned. None of them are in-depth at all, either just including her in a list of names, or have one-two sentences describing her. The article by Pearson devotes two sentences to her entry, and only one of those actually talk about her specifically. The article by Richards has one sentence on her, which is used to just mention how she is the "most obscure" aboriginal character. Both of the books by Frederick Aldama only mention her in the list of the members of her team. The article by Yunkaporta spends part of one sentence talking about her which is, again, used to mostly emphasize how obscure the character is. None of these incredibly brief descriptions could come close to supporting an independent article. And, as mentioned, since the remainder of the sources are either just plot summaries or discussions of the entire New Guardians team, a Redirect to the main topic is the most generous action to be taken here. Rorshacma (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't dispute that some of the mentions are brief, though in some of the cases you are describing it's a bit misleading to say that the commentary is limited to a handful of sentences where she is mentioned by name. For example, the Pearson article may only dedicate a couple of paragraphs to her specifically, but the article is also making an overall commentary about the general deception of Aboriginals in comic books, and he presents Betty Clawman as a part of that. So more of the article pertains to her than just the two paragraphs specifically about her. I'm sure I won't persuade you, but it's my view this article is already supported by reliable sources to establish notability (and again I'll stress, I don't believe these are the only sources that discuss her, but merely are the ones I was able to easily find with a quick search) and the article as it stands now include non-plot commentary that will be lost in the event of a redirect/merge, because the commentary on Aboriginals would not be relevant in a different article. — Hunter Kahn 00:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hunter Kahn's additions. The "Reception" article is now fleshed out with many RS references. I think splitting hairs over whether the RS called her "the most obscure" Aboriginal superhero is silly; being "the most obscure" is actually a distinction. She has been noticed, ergo she is notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the fact that the source called her obscure, its the fact that the entire coverage in the source is one sentence that calls her obscure. That is not "substantial coverage" as defined by the WP:GNG in any way, shape or form. And all of the added sources are just as insubstantial. I also want to point out that the added "reception" section is rather misinterpreting the coverage of the character. Several of the sources are, as I mentioned, talking about the team in general, but the reception section has been written in a way to make it sound like the coverage was specifically on this character. For example, Aldama does not call Betty Clawman specifically "interestingly fleshed out", as this article currently states. He talks about the entire team, lists the names of the members, and describes the entire team as a whole to be fleshed out. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In some instances, yes, the sources are talking about the character in the context of the team, but that doesn't mean they aren't talking about the character. It is still accurate to say the discussion is about her as well as the team, and some of the prose notes that this is the case. And there are other examples where the commentary is solely about her and not other team members; i.e., none of the other members are Aboriginals, so obviously that commentary is only related to her, and all of that would be lost in the event of a merge or redirect. — Hunter Kahn 21:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following up on my Keep vote. The book Multicultural Comics: From Zap to Blue Beetle ed. by Frederick Luis Aldama (University of Texas Press, 2010) says:

The 1980s and 1990s saw other notable superheroes of color arrive on the scene, including: Steve Englehart and Joe Staton's creating of a team of immortals called the Chosen, as part of their series Millennium, who are recruited to "advance the human race". The team includes, among others, an Australian aboriginal woman, Betty Clawman; a Maoist from mainland China, Xiang Po; an Inuit, Tom Kalmaku; and Afro-Caribbean Brit, Celia Windward; and Gregorio de la Vega, born and raised Peruvian.

Yes, the character's name is only mentioned once, but it's a paragraph that specifically says notable superheroes of color :) and presents her name as first on the list. People in academia who are studying the history and impact of multicultural characters in comic books consider Betty Clawman to be notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character being included in a laundry list of characters shows she's not particularly important on her own. If none of these sources take the time to actually discuss what makes the character important, then the character is just a small piece of the larger picture. If you want to make an article on the history of representation and diversity in comics, that'd be a great source. If you want to make an article on one of those five characters, it's not a great source. TTN (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree with you, particularly your description of how the character is utilized in these sources. But as I said here, I am refraining from continuing a repetitive back-and-forth with you. We've each expressed our opinions and will have to agree to disagree with each other. — Hunter Kahn 22:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references provided are just enough to establish notability. Rhino131 (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep per WP:HEY. This was nominated as editors were fixing the issues. AfD is not for normal editing issues. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability now established.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:09, 14 February 2020 (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.