Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Summers brother

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 no consensus. While I tend to sympathize with those who think this would best be addressed in an X-Men wiki, there is not a consensus to delete here. I do not think it's fair to accord less weight to the keep !votes, because there is respectable coverage in Comic Book Resources, and my evaluation of that site and a quick look at RS/N suggests that it is a reliable source for its area of emphasis. The article still suffers from too much original research, and I suspect that it will need to have improved sourcing to avoid eventual renomination. Editors may wish to consider carefully if an appropriate merge target can be developed. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Third Summers brother

Third Summers brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete - not a notable concept. There are no reliable third-party sources that include significant coverage of this (currently) non-existent, theoretical, character. The only sources currently cited are an unreliable fansite and a former forum that no longer exists, so that the little possibly factual information about this character theory is unverifiable. No Google results other than additional fansites. Great swaths of the article are original research. I realize that fans of the genre like to have every facet covered in complete detail but this material is suited for an X-Men wiki, not Wikipedia. It doesn't begin to approach meeting inclusion standards. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, some sources can be found such as previews, reviews and interviews. The term "third Summers brother" is used in them. Other sources could certainly be found with only "Summers brother" and be added to complete the sources. The creation concept is interesting, the idea of an other brother is suggested by an author and various artists use it. In an universe like Marvel, the processus of writing a new story and take into account all that has been written before is quite difficult. In this article, we can see the insertion of new characters to answer an enigma launched by a previous author and in the same time the perilous exercice to insert them in the continuity currently in existence.--Crazy runner (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• All of the in-universe interest in or difficulty around the topic is not relevant to whether there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover the topic (as opposed to simply using the term). If you could offer some examples of such sources that would be appreciated since all I've seen are blogs and fansites which do not meet the standard for sources. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already added some sources which use the term "third Summers brother". If the term is used in interviews and reviews (ex Comic Book Resources), it gives notability to the concept of an additional brother. Any source about a new character that could be a Summers brother can be added to the article. If you want a source which makes a review of the possible third summers brother, read this one [1].--Crazy runner (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that perhaps you are not understanding the notability guideline. There need to be multiple independent reliable sources that are significantly about the subject of the article. If the sources only "use" the term then they are not offering significant coverage of the subject. If the sources are not reliable, in that they are fansites and blogs, then they don't meet the standard. I would not argue the point that there are sites on the Internet that make mention of this character concept. But those mentions do not rise to the level of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that Wikipedia expects for its articles. The citations that you're offering are fansites and blogs for the most part and even if they weren't their coverage of the concept "third Summers brother" is limited to a sentence or two, and in some cases just a single sentence. Take for example this review of a collection from GeeksofDoom (an unreliable blog to begin with) which addresses the concept of "third Summers brother" in a sentence and a half. Or this chat transcript (which has verifiability issues) which contains a single question about the concept out of some 50 questions asked. And the rest of the various cites currently in the article and elsewhere are all more of the same. If there were truly reliable sources that did actually cover this concept in a significant fashion then these cites might serve possibly to fill in some blanks but to serve as indicators of notability they are simply not sufficient. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A book is used as a source for the meeting between Sinister and Scott Summers. Comic Book Resources presents the concept of the third brother and it is well developped. In an interview with IGN, editor Nick Lowe explains that the mention of the third summers brother allows to boost the sales of Deadly Genesis. They are sources and good ones. They are the main sources and the others are only filling the blanks and you can read in a lot of them the importance of the "third summers brother". And I do not like "The citations that you're offering are fansites and blogs for the most part". Most part come from CBR, IGN and ComicsAlliance.--Crazy runner (talk) 14:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The book cites a single page out of a 186 page book and it is used to source dialogue from the comic book. This CBR reference includes two sentences about the concept. This CBR reference is an article about comics "urban legends" and offers limited coverage of the concept. This CBR source contains the single sentence "Who is the third Summers brother and what happened to him?" This blog source's coverage of the concept is a whopping eight words: "Originally intended to be the Third Summers Brother". These sources, unreliable as they are, establish that the character concept exists. No one is disputing that the concept exists. However, the concept is not supported by significant sources. Significant sources is not "it's mentioned on one page in a book" or "a blogger wrote a couple of sentences about it" or "I'm a fan and this is really important." Harley Hudson (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

At your sentence "offers limited coverage of the concept", I answer it is your opinion not mine. Is Adam-X notable ? Is Vulcan notable ? Have they been named the third summers brother during an interview or a review ? Have they been link to the story of Fabian Nicieza ? The answers are yes to all. Before saying "I'm a fan and this is really important.", you should read the interview, it is written something like "us editors use this concept to boost our sales". Some sources provide by only few sentences in an interview or in the beginning of a review the importance of the concept. Some sources provide by long paragraphs enought coverage to justify nearly all the sentences of the Wikipedia article. To "These sources, unreliable as they are", I answer that CBR receives many Awards, Comic Book Legends Revealed is a section of CBR that is published in books, IGN is widely used as a source on wikipedia and ComicsAlliance was nominated to the Eisner Awards.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, funny. If it is something not notable why is there someone who has decided to make a book about the subject ? [2]. Too bad that they used some pages of wikipedia.--Crazy runner (talk) 19:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are Adam X and Vulcan notable? I have no idea. The question is irrelevant to whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines or not. The book you cite is not a reliable source exactly because it uses Wikipedia content. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about the book that is exactly what I have said. For information, on wikipedia, there are pages about codenames, nicknames shared by notables comic characters. Some of them are used only as a disambiguation page, others develop more if there is a link between them. The sources prove that "third summers brother" as been used by artists, editors to qualify these characters that are notables. It gives a notability to it. As the sources prove that the denomination has been linked to the story written by Fabian Nicieza, it is normal that the article presents the story and different characters that fall under this denomination. Anyway, we are going nowhere, two opposite points of view. You think that is not notable and you qualify CBR, IGN and ComicsAlliance as unreliable. In some sources, you see a couple of sentences when I see paragraphs to justify the wikipedia article. You see a big Fan or Blogger saying "this is important" when I see an Editor (he is certainly a big fan but it is irrelevant). We certainly need other opinions on the subject. To finish on a good point, we are only agree that some minor sources are only here to fill the blanks.--Crazy runner (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All of these sources are minor, because that's what one or two sentence sources are, minor. The sources establish that this character concept exists but existence is not notability. That other pages exist on Wikipedia is irrelevant, since each article needs to have independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. "Some comics writers use 'third Summers brother'" does not take the concept into notability and any notability that characters that may have been bootstrapped under the concept have doesn't confer any notability on the concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I can read paragraphs with illustrations in this source [3] not one or two sentences. In my opinion, the denomination has a notability because it is used to qualify notable characters and it is used by artists and editors. This denomination is coming from the concept. Do you want a disambiguation page without explaining the links between the denomination and the characters ? When the concept is used to boost sales, I find it quite notable. The discussion is not progressing. At the beginning, the sources were coming from fansites and blogs, I give sources used on wikipedia that are reliables, sites with awards, you find them unreliables. At the beginning, it was a codename used by fans, I give sources that show artists and editors using this denomination, you reject it. At the beginning, it was just fans which find it important, I give a source which shows that it has been used to promote a series, you reject it. We certainly need other opinions on the subject.--Crazy runner (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Marvel uses it to sell books" doesn't make the concept notable. "In this issue, an X-Man dies!" has been used to boost sales for any number of individual issues and storylines. Does that make "Dead X-Man" a notable concept for an article? No. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the article Comic book death or List of dead comic book characters should not exist ?--Crazy runner (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that being used as the basis for a marketing push for a story arc does not serve as an underpinning for a legitimate Wikipedia article. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A comic book death of a particular character can be described in the character article that has died and can be put in relation with the article that explains the concept of a comic book death. I have got the impression in your last comment that you are concentring the attention on a single argument. If it was the only one, no problem I will be agree with you but it is not the case. If there were only two characters, the information could be included in Vulcan, the character most known as the third brother but it is not the case. If the characters were not notable, there would not have been an article about this concept but it is not the case. If I am reading well the sources, multiple notable characters were used to answer a question that is considered as an important question created in the main Marvel continuity. If I am reading well the sources, the term "third summers brother" is used to qualify this concept by artists and editors and used in relation with the notable characters presented in this article. If I am reading well the sources, it has been used to improve the sales of a notable series. Are there reliable sources which covered the essential information of the article ? (some with paragraphs about the subject, others with a few lines to fill the blanks) Yes, so it works for me. --Crazy runner (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• (outdent) The notability of characters who were at one time identified as or speculated as possibly being the fulfillment of this theoretical character concept has no bearing on whether the concept itself is supported by independent reliable sources that significantly cover the concept. "Here's a sentence that uses the term" and "here's a paragraph with a picture of the panel where Sinister says 'third brother'" and "here's two sentences in an interview" are trivial passing mentions of the sort specifically excluded by WP:GNG as contributing to a subject's notability. And most of the proffered sources are not about the concept "third Summers brother" but are instead about characters who were at some point or another speculated to be the "third Summers brother" or who were put forward as being a Summers brother but not the third brother to which the concept refers. The article itself ironically says it best. It was a throwaway line in a comic book that caught fan attention so a few Marvel writers played with the concept for a couple of characters. And that's all it is. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You should read the article and the sources. The concept "third Summers brother" refers to another member of the Summers family, it has never been proved that there are only three brothers. So this article is not about the third Summers brother. The concept is commonly called "third Summers brother". Some sources present the concept and the different characters created to answer this problematic. Some sources are only passing mentions, used to fill the blanks. The sources show that the term is used by reliable sources, artists, editors to demonstrate the links between these notable characters and the work done by artists to answer the concept of another member of the Summers family. One of the character has been chosen to be the third Summers brother in the main continuity, others have been speculated due to the plot in main continuity and linked in alternate continuities, others have been speculated and the writer could not finish his job. Are these characters are notables ? Are the readers have read the notable comic books, series in which the writers try to answer the concept of the third brother ? When the Summers link was not proven by the plot, has it been verify during interviews by quote from the writers themselves ? Is the denomination has been used to boost some sales ? Yes to all. About the sources, at the maximum, you see only one paragraph when some sources contain more than that. The sources are used to verify most of the material in the article, the majority of them are reliables. I didn't realise that the wikipedia article was made of only one paragraph, two sentences and a picture. When a writer says that he tried to answer the concept of another Summers in his story, it is not anymore a speculation, it is a fact.--Crazy runner (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Um...I have read the article and the so-called sources. I really don't understand where the disconnect is for you between "used in a source" and "significant coverage". All kinds of things are used in sources; that mere mention doesn't contribute to notability. I also don't understand where the disconnect is for you between the notability of an individual character that may or may not have been suggested as a possible brother and the concept "third Summers brother" itself. The notability of the character Vulcan means nothing toward the notability of the concept "third Summers brother". The notability of the character Adam X means nothing toward the notability of the concept. Fan speculation means nothing toward the notability of the concept. In-universe speculation means nothing toward the notability of the concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the notability of the series and the characters which tried to answer the concept is important otherwise what it is the interest to write an article if nearly no one has read one of the plot presented in the article. During an interview when a writer says that he tried to answer the concept of another Summers in his story, it is not anymore a speculation, it is a fact. Can you find reviews to justify the plots ? Can you find sources to justify that some characters have been intended to be another Summers brother ? Have you got sources that discuss most of the wikipedia article to justify that you are not creating an original work ? For me, it is a yes. The concept is linked to notable plots, artists and characters. The sources described it as an important question for the readers. The notability is proven by the sources. Most of the article is referenced by reliable sources. For me, it is always a Keep.--Crazy runner (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I have already told you, we certainly need other opinions on the subject because you have your opinion, you see something, I have my opinion and I see something else.--Crazy runner (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

CBR and UXN, listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group#Resources, are used as the two main sources of the article. They proved that it is not an original work grouping plots, reviews and interviews.--Crazy runner (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Just for information, before this deletion talk, there were talks about a merging of this article with Vulcan Talk:Vulcan (Marvel Comics)#i propose a merge and Talk:Vulcan (Marvel Comics)#Second Merge Proposal with the conclusion of non merging.--Crazy runner (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break following relist notice

• Delete There is no evidence that the topic itself, third Summers brother, is covered in reliable third-party sources or that it is a notable plot point. There are only trivial mentions at best and, per the general notability guideline, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The references used within the article barely mention the third Summers brother and none explain its relevance as a plot point. The one source that covers in detail the topic is an unofficial fansite, same as the external links. With no real-world context about why the plot point is relevant outside of the X-Men continuity, the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work that does not meet general notability guideline and should not be kept in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a fansite. Jfgslo (talk) 22:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• CBR covers in detail the topic and it is not a fansite.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Of the the references used within the article, only one touches the topic, while the others, a preview and interviews with Yost and Nicieza, are trivial mentions that barely talk about it and do not show how is the topic notable from a real-world perspective. And the one reference that talks about, only recounts the history behind the concept but does not give analysis or commentary about the importance of the plot point itself, not even from the X-Men continuity point of view. The CBR references do not offer real-world context or sourced analysis for the fictional plot point and they do not represent significant coverage because it is only one source. CBR may be reliable but the references used do not show how the third summer brother is a notable plot point. Jfgslo (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, coverage in secondary sources justifies retaining. Also worthwhile to give interested parties opportunity to improve upon the sourcing and expand relevant material, perhaps to revisit quality later. -- Cirt (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Specifically which secondary sources? The fansites? The self-published blogs? The ones that mention the concept in single sentences and which contain no substantive information? Harley Hudson (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• KEEP: I agree with Crazy runner in his arguments to keep the article. The key point is that the article is about a concept and not a specific person. It is called "Third Summers brother" because a third brother was not introduced until recently, and once he was introduced it made no sense to change it to "Additional Summers brothers" because the original term had been around for so long. Furthermore, Crazy runner has done an amazing job since the article was nominated for deletion to add appropriate references to the article. Before he added those references the argument was weak to delete the article, but there is no basis for deletion with those references now included. Spidey104 13:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• The basis for deletion remains the same, that there are no independent reliable sources that significantly cover this subject. A one-sentence mention on a blog is not significant reliable coverage. A couple of paragraphs in a longer general article are not significant coverage. Whether the article is about a specific character or the general concept makes no difference. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Although I agree with you regarding a one-sentence mention on a blog, I do not agree that a couple of paragraphs in a longer general article are necessarily not significant coverage. WP:GNG provides that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A couple of paragraphs specifically about the subject is probably more than trivial. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• KEEP I also agree with Crazy runner.
• In direct response to Harley's most recent comment: You ask for reliable references. Crazy runner provided reliable references. You now claim they are not reliable enough. The next step would be to delete at least half of the articles on Wikipedia based on your hyper-specific definition of reliable.
• If the arguments for deletion win out over the arguments against deletion then the information in the article should be merged rather than lost. Yes, I realize there have been merge discussions before that ended in consensus to not merge, but those were conducted under the natural assumption that both articles would continue to exist. I think all editors that were against the merge before would not be for the merge instead of losing the article's information completely. Vulcan would be the best location for this merge, but obviously I think keeping it as a separate article would be better. Kurt Parker (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Please do not distort my position. What I have said all along is two-fold: that many of the sources offered are not reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines; and that regardless of the reliability of the offered sources their coverage of this concept does not constitute significant coverage. My "hyper-specific definition of reliable" is exactly the same as Wikipedia's. My definition of significant coverage is exactly the same as Wikipedia's. Single-sentence mentions on blogs are neither reliable nor significant. Not every single line of dialogue in a comic book needs its own article, regardless of how many comics fans think that they should. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually your reply makes me believe that he represented your position perfectly. If you think Wikipedia's guidelines have to be followed to the letter then there are plenty of articles that should be deleted. I'm not kidding. (And I don't think Kurt was either.) I can't seem to find the Wikipedia page, but I know there is a statement that all of the rules can and should be broken when necessary and following the rules exactly can be worse than breaking them. CBR is not a blog and is a reliable news source for comic books. Just because it doesn't have a print copy doesn't mean it is less reliable than a newspaper. (Sidenote: considering how the newspaper industry is declining because of the internet you could easily argue that it is more reliable than a newspaper because it probably has more readers that will be able to point out if they are incorrect.) Also your last line "Not every single line of dialogue in a comic book needs its own article, regardless of how many comics fans think that they should." makes me believe that you are biased against comic book related articles and the WikiProject that supports them. Editors are supposed to be non-biased, therefore some administrators should consider whether or not your arguments are valid. And don't try to claim that I am biased for comic book related articles because I edit many of them: (1) I have argued for the deletion of some comic book articles because of non-notability (2) I stay away from articles that I am unqualified to determine notability on so as to keep that conversation balanced and fair. The significance of the concept and furor around this concept is surprising since it came from only a single line of dialogue, but point out another comic book article that is based on a single line of dialogue as you claim. Spidey104 13:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Actually he completely misrepresented my position. So did you, and you threw in accusations of bad faith on my part on top of it, so thanks for that. Regardless of whether CBR is a reliable source, its coverage of this subject, like coverage in every suggested source for this subject, is minimal. If this concept is so significant and the furor around it so great you would think that it would generate coverage in reliable sources that is more than a paragraph or two in a larger article about comic book urban myths. All of the fan chatter in the world doesn't make this a notable concept.
• I neither know nor care whether you are biased in one direction or another about comic book articles. Nor do I care what standards you apply to yourself in deciding whether or not to join a discussion. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome for the accusation of bad faith; I meant it. Bias against certain types of articles being included in Wikipedia is one of the biggest internal threats to possibly destroy the quality of Wikipedia.

If both of us misrepresented your position so badly why don't you explain your position better so we can get past this misunderstanding?

The furor around this subject was great back in the '90s, which is why there are so few internet sources for it. The furor has died down more recently, especially with the introduction of an additional brother. Would you accept a citation from Wizard from back in the day as a reliable resource? I haven't added it before because of (1) the effort it would take to dig the correct magazine from my collection to find the article and properly cite it and (2) I thought it was unnecessary to the article as it stood. Spidey104 15:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I can maybe help to find the correct magazine see the following link [4]. If it is not this one, maybe a mention of a magazine number or a date can be found in a forum to narrow down the research.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete I'm sorry, this reads as either WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to present a fan based theory to explain an in story plot hole/conflict. The references provided are problematic and don't really show notability.
  • Ultimate X-Men is only used to establish the Cyclops and Havok are related.
  • "X-POSITION Week 22" (CBR) is something that in the grey area of reliability regarding secondary sources for comics, but it mentions this topic in passing, at best.
  • "The Most Bizarre Superpowers In Comics" (ComicsAlliance) is also in that area, but it doesn't fully support what it is attached to as a reference. It is another "in passing" reference to the "theory"
  • "THIRD SUMMERS BROTHER" (UncannyXmen.Net) is not a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines.
  • "Comic Book Legends Revealed #217" (CBR) is about the best source listed, but it deals with a single character, not the entire theory.
  • "CBR Chat Transcript: Fabian Nicieza" is a non-reference.
  • "Marvel Previews for 5/10: "X-Men: Deadly Genesis" #6, "Annihilation: Super-Skrull" #2 & More" is a Marvel solicit, not a reliable source for this.
  • "Comic Review: Uncanny X-Men: Rise and Fall of the Shi’ar Empire" (Geeks of Doom) is questionable under Wikipedia guidelines and provides only a passing mention of the theory.
  • "X-Men: Second Coming Damage Report - Act 2" (IGN) Would be a good source but provides nothing.

So we are left with a non-notable topic and an article made up of unsourced theorizing and a spattering od plot and at least one unattributed quote. There is nothing here worth keeping. - J Greb (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

"Comic Book Legends Revealed #217" A single character really ?:

"The third Summers Brother was originally going to be Adam X The X-Treme!"

"A few years back, Ed Brubaker revealed in the pages of X-Men: Deadly Genesis that the third Summers brother was this fellow named Vulcan, who was the son of Christopher and Kate Summers (he was torn from the womb and incubated by the Shi’ar)."

"Chris Claremont gave HIS take on who the third Summers brother should be when he revealed in his alternate future series, X-Men: The End, that Gambit was the third brother. Of course, though, that was an alternate reality."

"Robert Weinberg was going to reveal that Apocalypse was actually the third Summers Brother!"

85.171.171.184 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Ultimate X-Men establish that the conversation with Mister Sinister and Cyclops exits.
• "X-POSITION Week 22" (CBR) mentions "Is there a third Summers brother?" as an important question in the main Marvel continuity.
• "The Most Bizarre Superpowers In Comics" (ComicsAlliance) is "in passing" reference to the "theory".
• "THIRD SUMMERS BROTHER" (UncannyXmen.Net) UXN is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/References.
• "Comic Book Legends Revealed #217" (CBR) deals with the entire theory.
• "CBR Chat Transcript: Fabian Nicieza" provides the opinion of Fabian Nicieza about the revelation of Gambit being the character in question over in X-Men: The End?
• "Marvel Previews for 5/10: "X-Men: Deadly Genesis" #6, "Annihilation: Super-Skrull" #2 & More" and "Comic Review: Uncanny X-Men: Rise and Fall of the Shi’ar Empire" (Geeks of Doom) provides only a passing mention of the theory "third Summers brother did indeed exist and was the previously unknown character Vulcan". A review of X-Men: Deadly Genesis would be better.
• "X-Men: Second Coming Damage Report - Act 2" (IGN) provides "the presence of the third Summers brother in the story was revealed to increase the sales"

85.171.171.184 (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be agreeing that the majority of the cited sources are passing mentions of the theory, is that a fair interpretation of your above comments?

Of those which you don't refer to specifically as passing mentions, you appear to be hanging a lot on the UXN because the Comics project lists it as a resource. However, reading the UXN site pretty clearly establishes that it does not meet the Wikipedia standard for reliable sources. The site solicits content from anyone who cares to submit it and there is no indication of a regimen of editorial oversight.

Whatever Marvel may or may not have done about the concept to increase sales does not contribute to the notability of the concept because anything Marvel does is by definition a primary source. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The article in Wizard Magazine, the CBR source and the UXN are not passing mentions. The passing mentions in the reviews provide each plot is linked to Franck Nicieza's plot. About UXN "We are a meritorious group, meaning that one must earn high-profile duties. New summarizers start with “back-issues”, or secondary titles proving that they have both talent and staying power in terms of being a Contributor." [5] If you want to know more about Peter Luzifer's work [6]. The interviews are secondary sources. If you tell someone else what I told you, you are the secondary source.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

When editing an article or proposing a deletion, a contributor follows the rules and recommendations of Wikipedia and the rules and recommendations of the article projects.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the "rules and recommendations" of an individual project do not and cannot override the policies and guidelines of the project as a whole. And grandiose statements from a fansite don't make the fansite reliable. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry too but you seem to have a reading problem. I have never write this statement about policies and guidelines. I am just telling you that you can not ignore the policies and guidelines of Wikiprojects because they do not suit you. My statement is the following: "UXN is written on the Comics Wikiproject on the page about the references and some contributors like Harley Hudson think that it should not be there". 85.171.169.124 (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

And my statement is that the comics project is free to adopt any statement it wishes and it doesn't mean dickie bird if it conflicts with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Articles that are under the purview of the comics project still have to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no "but not if the comics project disagrees" exemption. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you about the comics project and their contributors but I was not talking about exemption but consideration. It is better than just ignoring it. It is written but some contributors like you think it is against the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.85.171.169.124 (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Try to remember that finding good sources is problematic as the title of the article. It could be "Additional Summers Brother", "Summers Brother". Crazy runner seems to have concentrate on the use of "Third Summers Brother" in interviews to give importance to the concept and show that is more than a fan theory. I have a question for all of you. Have you watched the pages of Template:X-Men ? Except for the main characters, have you got reliable sources about the article subject and only the article subject ? Most of the time, there are only some sentences in reviews and interviews. It seems to be the same configuration for "Third Summers Brother". What proves the notablility of these characters ??? Notability of the series, the authors, the number of appearances ??? I defy you to prove only one reliable source about the character for each one of the characters in Template:X-Men. Here, reviews and interviews can be found and you have one ref that covers all the essential information of this article. If it is not enought, then you will have a lot of problem to stop future deletion processes about comics.85.171.171.184 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• If reliable sources don't exist for other articles related to the X-Men then they should be deleted as well. The non-notability of other subjects doesn't mean that this one should be kept. Sources don't have to be only about the subject of the article but they do need to include significant coverage of it. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is the comics project seems to act differently. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia but it is also made of popular culture. There is coverage: the comic books, the interviews, the reviews, the blogs even in another langage [7]. Coverage does not mean coverage of reliable sources which present all the subject. Each part of the subject, character linked to the plot with Sinister, can be find in a source. And more than one source have presented all the subject with all characters but only one reliable has been found for the moment. Definetely not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Except for a marvel encyclopedia which is a primary source, where will you find secondary reliable source about only one character which is not a main one ? You will only find trivial mentions. 85.170.153.15 (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break following 2nd relist notice

• Delete. Lacks independent encyclopedic significance. We could, no doubt, cobble together articles from reliable sources on "Donald Trump's Hair," "Angelina Jolie's Tattoos," or "Jennifer Lopez's Butt in Popular Culture". But like these, a long-dangling comic book plot point simply doesn't merit an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a paragraph on Angelina Jolie's Tattoos with pictures in Angelina Jolie. So why are you giving this example and not voting for a merge ??? It could be in Vulcan until an additional Summers Brother appears or sources bring new information.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.85.171.171.184 (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. There is some informations in Wizard Magazine about the subject. If someone has it, it is time to bring it in the game.--85.171.171.184 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and per Hullaballoo's cogent point; this is plain unencyclopedic. For pity's sake, this is a hypothetical plot concept in a fictional serial; however much Wikipedia includes pop culture, it's at least incumbent on said culture to exist.  Ravenswing  11:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." Have you read this source ?130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH ""A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Have you read this source ?130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The key operative phrase is "reliable published source." I'm am wholly unsold on the premise that this blogger's speculative op ed piece represents a "reliable published source."  Ravenswing  12:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comic Book Resources is a "reliable published source." Read the wikipedia article about CBR, the Wikiproject Comics [8], look the awards of this website, make some researchs, try to see how many articles use it as a source [9]. If CBR is not anymore a reliable source, a lot of work should be done on pages about comics. 130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have read the CBR source before voting, you would have read some stuff like "Thanks to Robert Weinberg for the information", Brian Cronin do a work of investigation and interview people before publishing.130.120.37.11 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: per Crazy runner points above--RossF18 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"There is some informations in Wizard Magazine about the subject. If someone has it, it is time to bring it in the game."

Would this source alone be enough to give notability with a secondary source to the article? I think so, but I have already stated my opinion to keep this article and I am unsure about the opinions of those for the deletion of the article, particularly Harley Hudson. How soon does it have to be added to the article? Spidey104 said he has the article, but he also went on WikiBreak and won't be back soon to add it. Kurt Parker (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. There's no legitimate precedent for amalgamating fan speculation on a particular plot point, such as this. This should be open and shut. I am not convinced that any of the sources presented above are unambiguously reliable secondary sources. This information could be conserved on a fan wiki somewhere, but it doesn't need to remain in article space. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

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.