Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:15, 12 September 2022

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 August 31. The result of the deletion review was overturn to redirect. For an explanation of the process, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review.

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. However, a discussion on a potential redirect is encouraged to continue editorially. Star Mississippi 17:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Willoughby Kipling

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Willoughby Kipling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable sources appear to be limited to trivial mentions and pop culture fluff articles. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep What the nom terms "pop culture fluff articles" are in fact non-trivial independent reliable sources like ScreenRant, Decider, CBR, and Cinemablend. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, minor fluff that brings absolutely nothing to the table:

• ScreenRant: Literally nothing but an overview of the character for the uninitiated, covering what already exists in the article. No usable commentary on the character.
• Decider: Another minor introductory overview with basically nothing usable.
• CBR: Same as the above
• Cinemablend: Same as the above
• All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. TTN (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no commentary. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. WP:NOTPLOT states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per WP:DUE, so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• GNG requires non-trivial coverage. They are four cookie-cutter articles regurgitating the same basic clickbait information they probably got from Misplaced Pages in the first place. They don't even have a real place in the article because they bring absolutely nothing new to the table. If a source cannot be used in an article, then it is by definition trivial coverage. If simply being mentioned in a reliable source was enough, every single modern character from a semi-notable series would have an article because these sites do the same thing on a daily basis for probably literally every single character. That's not to mention that listicle-producing trash like SR and CBR probably barely skirt being RSs, if they even count. TTN (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• You know what? That's perfectly circular logic, so devoid of actual policy support, that you've well and truly dug a hole: You're arguing that RS'es that confirm our article is correct don't contribute to notability, and that multiple RS'es saying the same thing is reason to discount all of them. ETA: Oh, and that multiple paragraph articles that are specifically about the topic are trivial. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• You keep ignoring the "significant coverage" aspect. You have to show what merit these sources provide, explaining how they constitute significant coverage. If they do not merit inclusion in the article, they are not significant coverage. One source is all that is needed to fulfill verifiability of the television role. Any more than that is simply refbombing. The bit about the character's origin is already attributed to a primary source, so it is primary information directly from the creators. It doesn't need any other sources to confirm, thus those are useless in that regard. Again, these are not unique articles. These sites make their money off of clickbait covering every single casting decision in every single semi-popular show. If you were correct in your assessment, nearly every modern television character would be notable, which is not the case whatsoever. You're just simply incorrect, which seems to be very common in these recent fiction-related AfDs in which you've participated. I think you simply don't understand how fiction should be treated. TTN (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No, I understand exactly what you're saying, and entirely disagree. "You know why Encyclopedia Britannica covered all those topics? Sheer profit motive!" sounds about as credible. Yes, almost every modern TV show character is notable, because we have RS coverage for them. You think this is a bad thing? Sorry that Misplaced Pages wants to cover more than you want it to, but the mismatch is between your expectations and policy. Trying to artificially and inappropriately raise the bar on significant coverage is fine... WP:VPP is that way. Until then "directly and in detail" is the governing definition. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Jclemens There is coverage and there is coverage. When the coverage doesn't go beyond plot summary and mentions of which media a character appeared in, GNG is not met as the subject has no wider significance. Here's food for thought: Genshin Impact is one of many very popular new video games that has dozen of playable characters, with a new one released monthly if not more often. All of said characters have dozens of how-to game guide pages (sample). While we should have a List of Genshin Impact characters (I just found one at draft and will probably fix and mainspace it soon), as someone who plays the game and reads much of such coverage, I am pretty sure that none of these characters deserve a stand-alone wikipedia page, as there is no reception of them outside of how-to-play guides and plot summaries. (Which is still more than for many non-game characters, where there are just plot summaries, but no how-to-play guides, as they are not playable... case being this one, discussed here). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

    You posit your "food for thought" as if a large number of notable characters is a bad thing. Sorry, but that's not anywhere in policy--not quite as bad as suggesting a series of multiple paragraph articles on a character all comprise trivial coverage, but still not policy. WP:NOTPAPER applies: if we can write RS'ed articles on a million fictional elements, super! Now here's my question for you: Why would this be a bad thing? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

    @Jclemens If they meet our requirements for GNG, that's a great thing. The bad thing is if they don't. A lot of good articles is a good thing, a lot of bad articles is a bad thing :P My point is that in this day and age we are seeing a ton of low quality coverage of, among other things, fictional characters, but that coverage is litle more than a noise - see the sample article I linked about one particular GI character. I do not belive it constitutes SIGCOV. Would you agree or disagree with this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Want more commentary? Fine. Den of Geek, IGN India, Flickering Myth: three more unique RS'es commenting on the episode in which the character first appears. Satisfied? Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• All trivial mentions that wouldn't even be worth putting in episode articles (of which none even exist), let alone a character article. I repeat that all sites do this on a daily basis for all shows. These are not sources that help anything meet GNG. TTN (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I concur, but I'd be mildly interested in seeing how someone could waste their time trying to make a reception out if this. IFF this is kept such a reception section needs to happen first; in the current state the article is just a fancrufty plot summary with no value for our readers (I am sure fanwiki on the topic has a much better plot description anyway, with more links to in-universe topics, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

• Keep Passes GNG based on sources found.★Trekker (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to John Constantine#Analogues. I'm not convinced that the above coverage constitutes significant coverage, but Kipling is known for having been created to get around restrictions DC had on Constantine at the time, so I'd say that's a suitable merge target. JOEBRO64 00:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to Doom Patrol, the above cited coverage are clear examples of trivial mentions rather than significant coverage, all they do is regurgitate the same sentence of information rather than provide anything that would contribute towards a GNG pass. Nothing better was gleaned from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: and @StarTrekker: or merge with List of DC Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to one of the proposed targets. I concur that the soruces cited are just plot summaries, that fail either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ALLPLOT. If there is nothing but plot summary and a list of apperances (in comics and an occasional TV feature), there is nothing for us to cover. We need some sort of reception, cultural significance, etc. that goes beyond "he can shoot lasers out if his butt and appeared on volume X of Laserbutt and episode Y of Buttlaser". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Plot summaries in RS are RS, and count for notability, even if that were true here which it's not. Did you even read the sources? Your characterization is so at odds with what they actually say that it suggests you did not. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Plot summaries in reliable sources absolutely do not count towards a GNG pass, an article based on such sources would be a textbook violation of WP:NOTPLOT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep: The sources provided in here show that WP:GNG is met, IMO. Plus, here's a piece I found from Decider. MoonJet (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG based on sources found. Thank you--Assyrtiko (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different possibilities being discussed here, these doesn't seem to be consensus to Delete this article but opinions vary on whether this should be Kept, Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 02:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to John Constantine#Analogues - Every single source that has been presented in this AFD has just been the exact same piece of information on the character's appearance in an episode of the Doom Patrol show, and the only real piece of information in any of them outside of the plot summary of the episode is just an explanation of his similarities to John Constantine. That latter factoid is not enough to build an article around and is, in fact, completely explained at John Constantine#Analogues already. Rorshacma (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to whatever. There is no shortage of trivial articles, while more than passing mentions, aren't enough widespread coverage on the character. SWinxy (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect agree with points made above. Nweil (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per Rorshacma. None of the coverage passes the threshold to meet WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Constantine#Analogues as a sort of non-notable alternate version, but does not pass the notability threshold for a standalone article. Trivial coverage should not be misleadingly presented as significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to John Constantine#Analogues. The article without a doubt fails WP:GNG per previous arguments, I find the keep arguments to be meandering. When did plot summaries, minor character overviews, trivial mentions, and routine coverage became SIGCOV, and how could WP:NOTPAPER supersede WP:GNG, which this does not meet, Jclemens? IMHO the keep votes boil down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. The keep arguments also misleadingly claim that Screenrant and CBR are RS, please read WP:RSP and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, these are situational. So, with non of the refs being significant, indepedent, and reliable, not even borderline notability is achieved, but per WP:ATD a redirect seems to be sensible. VickKiang (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • It's pretty simple, really: there are four, congruent, non-trivial, independent, RS'es that cover the topic: It's notable. Your statements to the contrary are demonstrably inaccurate, and rely on imputing escalating levels of reliability and coverage that are neither demanded nor suggested by policies or guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If you feel this, based on your POV, is fine, why not let the closer decide whether the article will be kept or redirected? You state that I have a needelssly high bar of reliability and SIGCOV, but you are going against consensus both on this AfD through insisting trivial, non-RS refs are perfectly fine, and generally by denying consensus on whether refs are RS. Do you think the summaries on RSP and Wikiprojects are just wrong? I understand, as you are a more inclusionist, we won't agree on this, which is fine (it's after all part of building a consensus, and is arguably better than an AfD where everyone else agrees). Anyways, I am still interested in your definition of "trivial" and "reliable". Have a good day:) VickKiang (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I know you weren't replying to me, but personally, I've always thought that "trivial" mentions are mentions of a certain topic without any real substance behind it. For example, a source that gives a few basic descriptions of the character and maybe a one sentence opinion on them vs. a source that gives better analyses on the character and gives reasons why they think that way of the character. A lengthy source on the character helps, but it can still be significant without that. WP:TRIVIAL supports this point of view, which states "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections"

Then again, how "short" is short? And just how much is enough to write an article? That's a whole nother debate, but you get my point. Either way, my choice would be to keep the article, like I mentioned above.

As for Screenrant, it is determined reliable for entertainment-related topics, which this is, as the very page you linked to mentions. MoonJet (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect as the emerging consensus. Agree with the assessment of sources by nominator that there isn't enough to pass the WP:GNG for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2022 (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.

• Pages at deletion review