Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lantern Corps

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 wasDelete JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Lantern Corps[edit]

A yet to be published fictional group whose members, notariaty and standing significance have yet to be established. Delete per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. This is going to be an important storyline and while this article started out poorly it is getting progessively better. We should simply overhaul the article and get rid of anything contentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.191.183 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This entire article is based on one brief interview, using vague predictions, with no real verifiability. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We know this group exists, so deleting the article would be a fools errand as we would only have to re-create it. Why not simply gather more information over the coming month, then check through the article line by line for any innacuracy, and alter or delete any information when we know more? Wordforge (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Deleting this article is not a "fool's errand". If you would like to gather more information and save it to your personal blog or hard drive, by all means do so. When/if this subject becomes current and notable, feel free to recreate the article by a simple cut/paste. I would recommend a lot of cleanup - there are too many trivial sections, a strange trivia section with one pseudo-trivia bit in it, and would obviously need more references. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I apologise if that sounded disrespecful, I merely mean that wikipedia has a lot of articles about (for example) movies that have not yet been released, and they are not deleted simply because they haven't been shown yet. True? That's why we have the warning:

The caveat on the article reads "This article or section contains information about a scheduled or expected comic book release, or a series already in progress. It is likely to contain tentative information and the content may change dramatically as the product release approaches and more information becomes available."

I and other Green Lantern fans will be constantly be updating this page to show more references, more proofs and more information as it comes out. Regards, Wordforge (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-response: No apology needed, I didn't mean to chastise. I personally think Wiki policy is pretty clear on this - see WP:NFF for a rebuttal to your film argument, and this is the applicable part of WP:NOTE:

Defining notability for fiction:

Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content. Based on this reasoning and the above excerpts, fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.

As you can see, this article crosses over the line of multiple Wiki guidelines. It is speculation of a future fictional work, sourced from one interview that can neither be considered substantial nor reliable. The article itself does not address real-world development, it merely offers a fictional plot summary of what might be written in the future. I was serious before; copy this article and use it as a place to start when the subject becomes a "real" creation. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm super excited about the Black Lanterns, but this is a clear case of crystal balling. I think the event doesn't happen until 2009 or something? Which means all this article is going to be for the next two years is a magnet for speculation and rumor. It can be recreated when actual information is available. Ford MF (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comic is coming out in 2009. It's 2008 tommorow. So it won't be a two-year wait. Wordforge (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's summer 2009, so let's split the difference and say a year and a half. Ford MF (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:NFF

"Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material."

Since this comic series has been advertised, and I have just posted a link to a Newsarama article with one of the co-creators that verifies at least some aspects of this, I would still reccomend we stay our hand on this, although I will take your advice and copy and paste this into a word doc in case it is deleted. Enjoy your new years guys. Wordforge (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- the article seems to be improving, and even if there isn't much now in terms of sources, I'd imagine more would be available in the foreseeable future. Am I making any sense? Anyway, my vote is for keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note:- this article is not about a series, nor is about a specific storyline. It is about a fictional group which has yet to appear, and will not for another year and half. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as crystal balling fan-cruft. Maybe there's an article here for Spring 2009, when the arc is supposed to be close to being published... maybe. But definitely not now. - J Greb (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A good portion of this article was original research and completely made-up garbage by Wordforge. ("Dark Lantern Corpse"? "Dark Guardians"? "Resembles" Ysmault?) I've since cleaned it up, but I don't see why this warrants an article now. 69.23.135.79 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's kinda premature to make a seperate article about them. There probably won't be enough to make a half decent article until at least 2009.--Marhawkman (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly remove the original research, remove the speculation, but this is a credible search term, so maybe we need to look at a relevant place to merge the sourced info to and leave behind a redirect. Green Lantern Corps? Hiding T 23:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given what we've got... Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings where the gist information is already. - J Greb (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be the best redirect target then? Hiding T 13:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, and yeah, it looks to me like we can either merge and redirect to Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings or delete and then recreate as a redirect to Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings given that the edit history of the article in question is pretty much of one user who has also added the verifiable information to Power ring (weapon)#Other colored rings. I think WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR are the relevant policies here. Hiding T 14:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion appears to be over, can we kill it now?--Marhawkman (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep!" I understand all of the points made, as well as the comment about "crystal balling." However, as long as we keep a close watch on the material being properly referenced, instead of speculation, I think it should stay. Part of the enjoyment is trying to piece together the clues before the storyline comes together. In the Green Lantern universe, one needs only to look at the cross-references between the Alan Moore-based "prophecy" and the upcoming stated storylines by Geoff Johns to see Wiki users sharing information from 20 years ago to now and making connections. Let this continue through 2009, and if the page can't be salvaged (merged or kept), then consider deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmathews (talk • contribs) 02:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--At present, most, if not all, of the information is duplicative and copied from the article on DC Power Rings. If it's later warranted to have the article, it can simply be recreated by unmerging it.--Marhawkman (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Stop at "Part of the enjoyment is trying to piece together the clues before the storyline comes together." That's fodder for a fan site or forum, not an encyclopedia. As a story arc we've little more than "Summer 2009" for that. As a story element there's even less, and what is there belongs in other articles. Putting those bit into a single article is either a collection of random story snippets or, worse, rampant speculation. - J Greb (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree with J Greb. Wikipedia doesn't piece together clues, we don't do original research. Hiding T 15:46, 6 January 2008 (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.