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.
Keep Its a work in progress. Im working on adding more section I think this is a unfair nomination.
OLI03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Could we potentialy move the article into the draft space until I can provide enough information to warent the articles exitance.
OLI03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Restore Redirect - The sources available upon searches do not include anything beyond routine reviews/summaries of the episodes or casting news, and very brief, couple sentences worth of "reception" like the sources added to the article. The characters' section on the
List of Legends of Tomorrow characters is already very detailed, and there is no coverage showing enough notability that splitting it out into a separate article would be justified.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
On the contraty it is very detailed on the seventh season. This goes further into detail and included Gideon's prior season seven experiance
OLI03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The concerns have been adressed and I would like to state if you filter by year you can find more iformation on the chraracter.
OLI01:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The number of citations has no bearing on passing the
WP:GNG, its the actual reliability of the sources and the amount of significant coverage that goes beyond routine announcements within those reliable sources. Not only are many of these citations not reliable sources, others are the most trivial of mentions (i.e., reviews/summaries of an episode that mention the character in two sentences, like
this one or
this one).
This one just lists the character's name in exactly one sentence saying no more than "she is in this episode". Filling an article with a multitude of trivial, low quality coverage does not demonstrate notability, and borders on
WP:REFBOMBING.
Rorshacma (
talk)
03:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Exluding those refrences you still have 9 articles. A few of the episode recaps directly name drop Gidoen in the article title or heavily talk about her. If you wish I can provide a list of articles with less refrences that haven't been nominated for deletion.
OLI04:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This was adressed in a prior statement. If you look at the refrences I would argue that more than half of them are about GIdoen.
OLI13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
There were also several articles after the nomination. There exist several articels that havent been nominated that have fewer actual refrences than this one.
OLI13:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on sources, particularly ones added since the initiation of the AfD? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk03:15, 4 June 2023 (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.
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.
Keep Its a work in progress. Im working on adding more section I think this is a unfair nomination.
OLI03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Could we potentialy move the article into the draft space until I can provide enough information to warent the articles exitance.
OLI03:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Restore Redirect - The sources available upon searches do not include anything beyond routine reviews/summaries of the episodes or casting news, and very brief, couple sentences worth of "reception" like the sources added to the article. The characters' section on the
List of Legends of Tomorrow characters is already very detailed, and there is no coverage showing enough notability that splitting it out into a separate article would be justified.
Rorshacma (
talk)
18:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)reply
On the contraty it is very detailed on the seventh season. This goes further into detail and included Gideon's prior season seven experiance
OLI03:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The concerns have been adressed and I would like to state if you filter by year you can find more iformation on the chraracter.
OLI01:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
The number of citations has no bearing on passing the
WP:GNG, its the actual reliability of the sources and the amount of significant coverage that goes beyond routine announcements within those reliable sources. Not only are many of these citations not reliable sources, others are the most trivial of mentions (i.e., reviews/summaries of an episode that mention the character in two sentences, like
this one or
this one).
This one just lists the character's name in exactly one sentence saying no more than "she is in this episode". Filling an article with a multitude of trivial, low quality coverage does not demonstrate notability, and borders on
WP:REFBOMBING.
Rorshacma (
talk)
03:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Exluding those refrences you still have 9 articles. A few of the episode recaps directly name drop Gidoen in the article title or heavily talk about her. If you wish I can provide a list of articles with less refrences that haven't been nominated for deletion.
OLI04:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)reply
This was adressed in a prior statement. If you look at the refrences I would argue that more than half of them are about GIdoen.
OLI13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
There were also several articles after the nomination. There exist several articels that havent been nominated that have fewer actual refrences than this one.
OLI13:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on sources, particularly ones added since the initiation of the AfD? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk03:15, 4 June 2023 (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.