Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krakoa (3rd nomination)

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 speedy keep. Almost all consensus was to keep this article. (non-admin closure) `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa[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)

Just a lot of fancruft. Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. User:Nekivik^{TT me} 10:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ^{TT me} 11:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current article is really bad, but as shown at the last AfD, independent sources do exist that discuss Krakoa in a real-world context (e.g., The Mutant Land: How the Island Krakoa Dictates the Mutant Society in House of X and Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics), so the subject is notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the results of the last AFD, there is sufficient sourcing to show it as notable. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K because then the information will not be deleted if someone want to edit with references in distant future. Notable sources that pass the minimum standards of GNG in last Afd were to be used on this page. Those sources aren't added in this page till date. While the references are almost same as during first Afd. Unless those sources showing real-world notability are being added, the page is still not notable.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of WP:N is that the sources just have to exist for the subject to be notable, not that they have to be currently used in the article. At WP:ARTN it says Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis mine) So even if the sources aren't used in the article, it is still notable and the page should still be kept. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

This page clearly fails WP:NOTPLOT: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia does treat works of fiction in an encylopedic manner. That means if the sources exist to be able to do this, the subject should get an article. The sources exist to be able to do this (I linked a couple in my vote), so the subject passes WP:N and should have an article. Notability is about the subject, not the article. OliveYouBean (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OliveYouBean I was pointing that page fails WP:NOTPLOT, one of the main reasons for getting deleted as per WP:DEL-REASON. See instruction page for 14th point of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Only one above-mentioned source is reliable. Just existing in-world notability sources doesn't mean it is always reliable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable; so Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics fails WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The journal uses a double-blind peer review process for all submissions. Taylor & Francis Online is a reliable repository that would not lie about that. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per my rationale in the prior AfD, which can be summarized as: yes, this is potentially notable. No, the article does not show this. This is currently fancruft and should be just a redirect, until someone actually bothers to read the sources found and write a section about reception or analysis. I'd be happy to vote keep when that happens. Until that happens, this does not meet WP:NOTPLOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article's subject meets WP:GNG. Nothing has changed since the previous AfD in terms of notability in that regard. The article may need work, but deletion is not cleanup. I'm also concerned about how certain editors were notified of this discussion, as only those who have suggested not keeping the article previously seem to have been notified. They notified the previous AfD's nom and notified the only other active editor who suggested something other than to keep at the previous AfD, and skipped over the seven editors who suggested keeping the article. They also notified an editor who suggested redirecting a similar article and made a similar argument about the state of this article as the nom. I'm not saying it was done maliciously or in bad faith but if we're going to individually notify editors of an AfD, it shouldn't only be those who would be likely to agree with you. - Aoidh (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I'd say it's fair to ping @Jc37, @Rtkat3, @Haleth, @Jackattack1597, @Daranios, @Qwaiiplayer, and @Rhino131 from the last AFD as well as its closer @4meter4 to see if they maintain their opinions from 15 months ago, or have anything new to add. Additionally, I noticed something weird in this AFD, where the nominator edited a comment by another user which I reverted, then they did it again but self-reverted, which is odd enough, but then the user whose comments were edited changed it back to what the nominator had done, so I'm not exactly sure what that means but it is unusual. BOZ (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this before because they tried to ping me while editing someone else's message, which just seemed... bizarre? Since then things have become (in my opinion) weirder. They went on a spree of notifying users about this AfD, then promptly retired due to "limited knowledge of various wikipedia rules and processes". I have no idea what that's about. I hope they weren't discouraged by people's messages at their talk page. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BOZ I am not sure why I was pinged to this discussion. I did not offer an opinion in the first or second AFDs. I was the neutral closer of the 2nd AFD which I closed as keep because there were no votes for deletion in the 2nd nomination other than the nominator. Consensus in that discussion was clearly to keep the article. I have no opinion on this particular topic. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there were plenty of sources to establish N for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa, it follows logically that those also establish notability for the parent topic. Both editors in favor of redirection admit that regular editing could fix any current problems with the page... so there's really no case for deletion at all. Jclemens (talk) 08:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD for Quiet Council resulted in a merge/redirect to Krakoa. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the previous discussions already noted; per Jclemens, above, who I think said it better than I could've; per everyone else on this page; and really per common sense. Sigh. Maybe we need to take another look at how subjective GNG is, if we're going to continually see it merely being repeatedly used as code for WP:IDONTLIKEIT... - jc37 12:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me the argumentation for deletion is again based on the current state of the article, which is explicitely not decisive according to WP:NEXIST. It has been shown in this and previous deletion discussions that secondary sources exist to establish notability. The way to solve the problem with too much plot summary is therefore not deletion but improvement with the help of these sources. There is no deadline for such improvements, and no specific Wikipedian is required to do anything, but as usual I'd expect those most offended by the current imperfect state of the article to be the first ones to take action for improvement. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims as last time and the claims of @OliveYouBean:, @BOZ:, @Aoidh:, @Jclemens:, @Jc37:, and @Daranios:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous discussion and I agree with the above conversation that the argument for this deletion is not particularly strong. Deletion is not cleanup after all. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 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.