Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Promethium (comics) (2nd 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Promethium (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two non-notable substances from different comic book continuums. No real world context and I doubt there are sources to add any real world context to the article. Ridernyc (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentioned in primary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has anyone looked for sources additional sources? It doesn't appear to be the case. A significant number of pages link to this article. Sources are likely available if looked for. A quick search in search in google for Promethium in Comics pulled up several pages of secondary and tertiary sources. It is likely that the page can be expanded. This is the second time this page has been nominated for deletion. It was determined that the article should be kept after the last time is was nominated. Editors have slowly been adding to the article since then. 42of8 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No secondary sources are listed on the article, and the sources I see when I looked are either primary sources or non-reliable sources - fan websites, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

42of8, please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:GNG. As you read them please keep in mind we also need real world context in the article. For example the creator saying something like "I needed a super strong metal, and it needed a cool name so I took the name Prometheus and add "um" to the end of it." In order to be encyclopedia the articles need to be about our real world and how the subjects were developed and published not just summaries of their fictional elements in a fictional universe. Sorry but I'm tired of you repling with the same basic reply of WP:Ilikeit and heres a bunch of primary, unreliable sources that I found in Google that just mention the subject in passing and have no real world information about the subject. It's the same over and over again, and I have repeatedly taken the time to explain to you why these sources fall short and then in the next AFD there is your same exact argument again. I like it and heres a bunch of stuff I found in Google. Ridernyc (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a perfect example of this you have added this source to the article [1]. It's an IMDB listing that simply mentions something refereed to as a "a rock called Promethium X on the moon." So lets start, since this is a blurb from the makers fo the film that is being used on IMDB, it is primary. Second it's a plot summary with no real world context. Third, its a passing trival mention that totals two short sentences of something called "Promethium X." so it's far far far below the threshold of significant coverage. Last and most importantly this "Promethium X" from the brief description we have in the plot summary sounds like a totally different substances from the one discussed in the Marvel section of the article that is up for discussion. It fails as a source on every level of what we are looking for. Ridernyc (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2013 (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.