Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 8 (comics)

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. Recommend continuing discussion on possible merges. (non-admin closure) Swarm ^X 21:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section 8 (comics)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify this material. It looks like a joke to me. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have my doubts about notability, but clearly not a hoax/joke. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can you actually verify this stuff then? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verify existence, etc., no problem. [1] [2] [3]. Will I read the comic books and see if the details are right? Better you than me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are these reliable sources? If they are then maybe existence is verified. But we are still very far from notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newsarama certainly is reliable; it's one of the leading comics newssites. (The precise link does go to a discussion board, but that's because the site archives its articles and user comments together; the initial "post" is the RS article, an interview with the very notable writer.) The other two are reliable by user consensus; they're often used as cites in comics-related articles. Since your deletion rationale was hoax/joke/unverifiable, that should settle this round of things. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that forum.newsarama.com is, well, a forum. The OP of that thread may be notable, but he would need to be an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" to be reliable under WP:SPS. I'll comment on verifiability versus notability below. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that I addressed this point already. Newsarama archives its articles, which by general consensus satisfy WP:RS, together with user comments on them, which generally fail WP:RS. This is not significantly different from practice at other news sites; here Newsarama uses less sophisticated software, but the RS editorial content is clearly identified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please confine your comments to the discussion in hand and omit the comments on the inadequacies, real or imaginary, of other editors. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Ah, so the claimed RS is the material by Smith, quoting Garth Ennis, who devotes 200 words to this topic. That would establish the existence of the comic, which is good. I doubt that it goes very far towards "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Only a joke in the sense that, yes, sometimes comic books have jokes in them. Comic Book Resources verifies much of the article. Note the "Fun fact: Dogwelder won a Wizard award for 'Best new character' back when people actually read Wizard." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course! Thanks for asking, Starblueheather (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much "of course" about it, I fear. The link is to a post on a forum, and so ruled out by WP:SPS. If you have better information about the author of the post, such as a reason to believe that he is sufficiently expert that the exemptions apply, please give them. Otherwise it does not seem to help with verification, let alone notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are appear to be so laughably uninformed on the topic of comics that 1) You think this team "Section 8" is a hoax, even though it easily confirmed to have been published in mainstream DC comics, and 2) You think Comic Book Resources is an unreliable source, when it's instead the winner of the "Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism" Eisner Award. Thanks for the laughs; I wish you the best of luck in avoiding unintended comedy by confining your future editing to topics which you have greater understanding of. LOL, Starblueheather (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Comic Book Resources is an unreliable source in terms of Wikipedia policy unless and until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. If there is an argument in terms of Wikipedia policy, please present it. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming quite tendentious. HP is both unfamiliar with the general subject matter and the existing working consensus as to which comics news sites are treated as reliable references. It is a waste of time for HP to insist that other edits educate him on matters he appears unwilling to do basic research on for himself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article, not on other editors. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hitman (comics), where they appear to be recurring characters. The ELs are plenty to meet V, and possibly N, but is there really a call to cover them in their own article? I see no indication that they ever crossed over with any other comic. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I proposed this for deletion because I could not even verify the material in reliable sources and thought that it might even be a hoax. HW has given some sources which may be reliable for establishing existence and so I was probably wrong is suspecting it to be a hoax. But so far we are very far from establishing notability and it is false logic to argue, as has been done twice that the conclusion from "Delete as unverifiable" and "No, verifiable" is "Keep". Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Hitman characters instead. A merge to Hitman (comics) is not appropriate for two reasons. One, that article is presented in a timeline, per-issue format, where the characters would be (and I really hesitate to use this rule, as it is so often abused) undue WP:WEIGHT. Two, and fairly obvious, they are characters, and the format of that article suits their presentation perfectly. The sources listed at the AFD are very high quality (thank you for finding those, btw). The only thing standing in the way of their own article is that they are not the main subject of the series they were in. Anarchangel (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2011 (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.