Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildstorm Universe

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wildstorm Universe[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)

Overly in-depth plot dump that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. WildStorm and List of Wildstorm titles are sufficient to handle any fictional context deemed important enough for inclusion. TTN (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:NFICTION. Redirect to WildStorm, perhaps. Nothing salvagable I see here, mostly unreferenced, and the existing references are low quality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG with relative ease, given the multitude of sources on the topic. It's also the shared universe of a major comic book imprint. NOTPLOT is not a criteria for deletion, so if you have a problem with it, then rewrite it. AfD is not clean-up.

To name a few:

https://www.cbr.com/wildstorm-characters-dc-universe/

https://www.gamesradar.com/the-greatest-wildstorm-characters-of-all-time/

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/exclusive-dc-to-revive-wildstorm-imprint-curated-by-warren-ellis/

https://www.ign.com/articles/2016/10/04/writer-warren-ellis-to-reboot-dcs-wildstorm-universe

https://screenrant.com/evil-flash-comic-wildstorm-preview/

https://www.vulture.com/2016/10/wildstorm-comics-warren-ellis.html

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/the-new-wildstorm-universe-expands-with-michael-cray-1/

https://www.gamesradar.com/dc-postpones-plans-to-reprint-gen-13-origin-story-back-to-2022/

https://www.gamesradar.com/expect-more-wildstorm-returns-at-dc-next-year/ Dark knight 2149 18:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those provide significant coverage for the fictional universe, which is the core of the article. If you want to separate the fictional topic from the brand name perspective, Wildstorm already covers the publication history and the list of titles covers the works in it. TTN (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is WP:SIGCOV. The first source is entirely about the real world history of the fictional universe and why it was eventually merged into the main DC Universe in 2011. The second source discusses the characters of the universe, including their publication history. A WP:BEFORE test shows that this site has also published articles discussing the universe itself more directly. This news article and this news article discuss DC's decision and reasoning for unmerging the two universes. This article discusses how a major DCU character is portrayed in the Wildstorm Universe. This article is entirely significant coverage. This article also goes into significant detail about the history of the universe, its style, and importance. And on top of that, there are even more sources that I didn't list. I think it unquestionably passes GNG. Dark knight 2149 19:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s clearly all primarily referring to the publication history of the “Wildstorm Imprint”/“Wildstorm series,” which is also referred to as the “Wildstorm Universe.” That is completely different from discussing the “Wildstorm Universe” as its own separate fictional topic as the article is doing. Nothing of what you have posted covers the fictional topic in any significant way. The main article is where any discussion of that belongs. TTN (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If some of those sources were used in the article I might consider changing my vote to merge. As they aren't, it's a TNT-able fancruft mess. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep clealry passes GNG. Artw (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pamzeis (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funcraft that fails WP:GNG. The sources in the article seem to be either primary, dead links, or otherwise un-reliable. There doesn't seem to be anything else out there either from what I saw when I looked. There are some articles out there about it, but it all seems to be about individual comic book releases. Which I don't think works for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Adamant1. Des not pass WP:GNG because the sources are off topic and in passing, about individual comic book releases. Primary and unreliable sources are not enough to demonstrate notability. Jontesta (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Non-notable fancruft that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing the WP:GNG as adequate sources do not exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2020 (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.