Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Planets

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 redirect to Legion of Super-Heroes. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Planets[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)

Non-notable fictional topic. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legion of Superheroes. While lacking the reliable secondary sources needed to support an independent article, it is a major element of the Legion of Superheroes mythos, and is already discussed on the target page, making it a valid Redirect candidate. My only real concern is that its a pretty vague/generic title. Rorshacma (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Updated I was actually getting behind some of these planet deletions in AfD or PROD, but when searching for one of the others, I came across these articles, both of which are directly about "United Planets", so unfortunately, I can't back this one. More so since it showed up so high in my search for a distinct article.

Brian Bendis Bringing the Legion’s United Planets into DC Continuity at Bleeding Cool
Legion of Super-Heroes: What You Need to Know About the United Planets at CBR

I don't exactly think it's a good article, but if GNG/Notability is the basis for removal, I don't think those particular arguments hold water. -2pou (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those have anything that can actually be added to the article, so not sure why you think they're particularly relevant. It's just a "here's an in-universe summary of something slightly relevant to recent comic news." TTN (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they don't add to the article, but that isn't really what I was trying to do. I also don't particularly care if the article is kept or not; I simply don't think that a valid reason for deletion has been presented thus far. I might be able to look for one, but I don't have any interest in doing additional research into reasons for deletion. I'll look at them if presented to me (or abstain), but the ones that are always in my mind are notability and copyright. Notability is the only thing that has been presented thus far.
I find the articles relevant simply in establishing notability. Yes, there is in-universe content in there, but when I read GNG, these are the bullet points to hit:
✓Significant - The topic is definitely directly addressed, and in detail
✓Reliable - Both sites have editors
✓Sources (plural) - There are two
✓Independent - Both sites are not affiliated with DC
I assume that when you bring up in-universe, you are suggesting that this negates the significant coverage piece. That may be true in some cases, but I personally don't think making a hard and fast rule linking those two is valid—it is a case-by-case evaluation. In this particular case, two separate sites have felt the need to publish news about the article in question. In doing so, they use a lot of in-universe material, but it is done in order to establish context and help explain why they felt the need to write an article directly about the topic. I would feel differently if this was an issue recap that simply says these things happened. That's just my take, though. If no-one agrees, that's OK. If not kept, I'd lean towards Rorschacma's redirect suggestion over deletion. -2pou (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional topics need to have real world information per WP:PLOT, so a source that provides no real world information cannot be called significant coverage. You also need to look at those articles in the full context of those sites. Those kind of "what is this obscure topic being brought into relevance by a recent event" articles are a dime a dozen. Similar to how Top X lists deserve less weight than other articles, cookie cutter articles like that are nothing more than a means of catching relevant search results for a niche topical event in that sphere of influence. TTN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That is overall a different argument, though I see your link. This was fun. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma and cheap. -2pou (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legion of Superheroes.4meter4 (talk) 22:20, 6 November 2019 (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.