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 - Let this page stay. He is notable for being the first Flash villain to be introduced during the "
DC Rebirth." In addition, he was able to be adapted into the Arrowverse. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
My argument isn't Google hits. My point is that the character has received extensive coverage from third party sources and that coverage isn't difficult to find in a simple Google search (even on the first couple of pages). There's easily enough there to turn this into a GA-class article. Darkknight214910:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
But if you just link google search results, the top of which are clearly unreliable (wiki, fandom), then it is, well, GOOGLEHITS +
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. If you saw a good source there, or several, at least link those, and preferably, tell us what makes them valid (since so often people just link stuff here without reading them...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not making the argument that "There must be sources", I'm pointing out that there are sources and I'm beginning to wonder if you performed a
WP:BEFORE test at all. I counted several on the first few pages alone. Darkknight214906:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
first 10 google hits: 1) Wikipedia article 2) Fandom 3) Fandom 4) official site for DC comics 5) a blog on 4) 6) another fan wiki or a copy of Wikipedia article 7) 24 Best Godspeed images 8) 22 Best GodSpeed images 9) Facebook post. Ok, 9 hits since that's what I see on the first page of your results. Which of those are among your "several" good sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Not only does this character have extensive coverage, and was one of the more acclaimed villains to come out of
DC Rebirth, but we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. To say that this doesn't pass
WP:GNG, is frankly reaching.
There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well. Not only has this character received extensive coverage, but also an especially impressive amount for a comic book villain that didn't exist before 2016. Darkknight214906:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you really about to play the "nitpick the sources" game? Because we have an entire assortment of reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media. Literally anyone could turn this into a GA-class article, but by all means, pick out a couple of specific links and nitpick them to death.
Likewise - TV Line, ComicBook.com, ComingSoon.net, Comic Book Resources, Cinema Blend, Entertainment Weekly, i09 Gizmodo, Screen Rant, SyFy, Digital Spy, and Den of Geek are all examples of reliable community-vetted sources on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with any of them, I would suggest taking it to
WP:RSN. Darkknight214906:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
OMG.. throwing 18 random links at the discussion, possibly expecting some might stick, is not a helpful argument. I need to open every one now and read it... Per
WP:V responsibility to show they are relevant is on you, please... - GizzyCatBella🍁18:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
GizzyCatBella: Substantiating notability by demonstrating extensive coverage from reputable sources is not a helpful argument? Per
WP:ITSCRUFT, maybe you should have clicked on them before ignorantly declaring them "random". I really hope the closing administrator is taking note of how unbelievably silly the opposition is being. Darkknight214919:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
GizzyCatBella: I did that, and posted links to three of those sources below. I agree that posting bare links with no explanation is impolite. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
An explanation was given - "reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media" and "we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well." Per
WP:BADGER, no one is obligated to hold the proposer's hand through each and every individual source, particularly when it's the nominator's job to substantiate why the topic isn't notable or worthy of deletion. 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep based on the sources. There is clearly lots of information about the creation, development, and reception of this character in both the comics and the TV show. Many more reliable sources than most comics characters nominated for deletion recently.
Rhino131 (
talk)
10:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I ddo appreciate that you (and GCB?) took time to read through those and suggest which are the best.
[1] has the problem of being half plot summary and half
WP:INTERVIEW with the artist who wrote the story - I think such sources are fine to expand the article, but not for establishing notability.
[2] is a brief 2-3 sentence mention that this character may appear in a TV show. So is
[3], except it also seems to make some joke about his appearance. I am sorry, but are those really the best we can find? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here03:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The coverage checks off all of the boxes at
WP:GNG and
WP:NFICTION, and there is a enough coverage between critical reception, behind-the-scenes information, the writer's intentions, in-depth coverage of his adapted appearances, and plot information to properly flesh out the article. Likewise, interviews and statements from the creators are perfectly usable when there is adequate secondary coverage. iO9 is also considered a reliable news source on Wikipedia, so this feels more like a
WP:RSN issue. The coverage is a lot more than just plot summaries and passing mentions, as much as you trying to make it sound that way. I have to echo what
Rhino131said - If not a single one of the 18 examples above are reliable to you (as you told Dream Focus), your standards are simply too high. Much higher than the community's. Darkknight214907:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Since you argue nonstop with everyone else no matter what in these many AFDs you are constantly starting, and never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable, why would I waste time reading anything you write anymore?
DreamFocus13:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@Dream Focus, could you refactor your comment? I find "never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable" particularly problematic because it isn't true. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁09:35, 6 September 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.
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 - Let this page stay. He is notable for being the first Flash villain to be introduced during the "
DC Rebirth." In addition, he was able to be adapted into the Arrowverse. --
Rtkat3 (
talk)
16:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)reply
My argument isn't Google hits. My point is that the character has received extensive coverage from third party sources and that coverage isn't difficult to find in a simple Google search (even on the first couple of pages). There's easily enough there to turn this into a GA-class article. Darkknight214910:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)reply
But if you just link google search results, the top of which are clearly unreliable (wiki, fandom), then it is, well, GOOGLEHITS +
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. If you saw a good source there, or several, at least link those, and preferably, tell us what makes them valid (since so often people just link stuff here without reading them...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not making the argument that "There must be sources", I'm pointing out that there are sources and I'm beginning to wonder if you performed a
WP:BEFORE test at all. I counted several on the first few pages alone. Darkknight214906:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
first 10 google hits: 1) Wikipedia article 2) Fandom 3) Fandom 4) official site for DC comics 5) a blog on 4) 6) another fan wiki or a copy of Wikipedia article 7) 24 Best Godspeed images 8) 22 Best GodSpeed images 9) Facebook post. Ok, 9 hits since that's what I see on the first page of your results. Which of those are among your "several" good sources? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here06:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Not only does this character have extensive coverage, and was one of the more acclaimed villains to come out of
DC Rebirth, but we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. To say that this doesn't pass
WP:GNG, is frankly reaching.
There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well. Not only has this character received extensive coverage, but also an especially impressive amount for a comic book villain that didn't exist before 2016. Darkknight214906:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Do you really about to play the "nitpick the sources" game? Because we have an entire assortment of reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media. Literally anyone could turn this into a GA-class article, but by all means, pick out a couple of specific links and nitpick them to death.
Likewise - TV Line, ComicBook.com, ComingSoon.net, Comic Book Resources, Cinema Blend, Entertainment Weekly, i09 Gizmodo, Screen Rant, SyFy, Digital Spy, and Den of Geek are all examples of reliable community-vetted sources on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with any of them, I would suggest taking it to
WP:RSN. Darkknight214906:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
OMG.. throwing 18 random links at the discussion, possibly expecting some might stick, is not a helpful argument. I need to open every one now and read it... Per
WP:V responsibility to show they are relevant is on you, please... - GizzyCatBella🍁18:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@
GizzyCatBella: Substantiating notability by demonstrating extensive coverage from reputable sources is not a helpful argument? Per
WP:ITSCRUFT, maybe you should have clicked on them before ignorantly declaring them "random". I really hope the closing administrator is taking note of how unbelievably silly the opposition is being. Darkknight214919:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
GizzyCatBella: I did that, and posted links to three of those sources below. I agree that posting bare links with no explanation is impolite. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
An explanation was given - "reliable primary and secondary coverage, news articles, interviews, and reviews that go into detail on the character's backstory, history, reception, the creator's interpretation, and adaptations into other media" and "we have detailed coverage, episode recaps of his media appearances, creator interviews and articles detailing his history, ETC. There are many professional comic book reviews that critique the character as well." Per
WP:BADGER, no one is obligated to hold the proposer's hand through each and every individual source, particularly when it's the nominator's job to substantiate why the topic isn't notable or worthy of deletion. 19:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Keep based on the sources. There is clearly lots of information about the creation, development, and reception of this character in both the comics and the TV show. Many more reliable sources than most comics characters nominated for deletion recently.
Rhino131 (
talk)
10:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)reply
I ddo appreciate that you (and GCB?) took time to read through those and suggest which are the best.
[1] has the problem of being half plot summary and half
WP:INTERVIEW with the artist who wrote the story - I think such sources are fine to expand the article, but not for establishing notability.
[2] is a brief 2-3 sentence mention that this character may appear in a TV show. So is
[3], except it also seems to make some joke about his appearance. I am sorry, but are those really the best we can find? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here03:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
The coverage checks off all of the boxes at
WP:GNG and
WP:NFICTION, and there is a enough coverage between critical reception, behind-the-scenes information, the writer's intentions, in-depth coverage of his adapted appearances, and plot information to properly flesh out the article. Likewise, interviews and statements from the creators are perfectly usable when there is adequate secondary coverage. iO9 is also considered a reliable news source on Wikipedia, so this feels more like a
WP:RSN issue. The coverage is a lot more than just plot summaries and passing mentions, as much as you trying to make it sound that way. I have to echo what
Rhino131said - If not a single one of the 18 examples above are reliable to you (as you told Dream Focus), your standards are simply too high. Much higher than the community's. Darkknight214907:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Since you argue nonstop with everyone else no matter what in these many AFDs you are constantly starting, and never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable, why would I waste time reading anything you write anymore?
DreamFocus13:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)reply
@Dream Focus, could you refactor your comment? I find "never like any sources found no matter how many others state they are acceptable" particularly problematic because it isn't true. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁09:35, 6 September 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.