Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:18, 21 August 2022

Hall of Justice (comics)

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!

Hall of Justice (comics) (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)

I've prodded this 2 years ago with "How is this comic book location notable? Sources are the usual PRMARY for PLOT, plus list of appearances in media. It was also made into two or three toy sets. Nothing here seems sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article?". The PROD was removed without any comment, and the article is still a combo of plot summary and list of comics and related media this appears in (which is pretty much a bulleted point version of plot summary). Can this be saved? My BEFORE suggest this is unlikely... (all I see are some minor plot summaries). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Architecture, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Very selective merge to Justice League#Headquarters The detail that it was based on CUT is interesting and relevant, but the level of fannish detail is far from encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Selective Merge to Justice League#Headquarters - My assessment of the independent notability of the location is the same as the nominator's. However, its a valid search term, there is a perfect target for a Redirect, and that very small bit of sourced material on its real-life origin can be merged over there, as said by Mangoe. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Justice League#Headquarters. If the end result is merge, I ask that the closer of this discussion start a sub-section for the Justice League's respectful headquarters and have the information for the Hall of Justice be placed under the established Hall of Justice section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep Passes GNG based on sources in article. Bad articles need improving not deleting. AFD is not cleanup.★Trekker (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SIGCOV is not met by any source. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect to Justice League#Headquarters. The topic doesn't appear to have coverage that can allow it to meet GNG. What's in the article seems to mostly amount to fluff. TTN (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Merge to Justice League#Headquarters. I found no evidence of the subject meeting GNG. There doesn't seem to be much to merge, but a merge seems a better option to me than a full-on delete. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to Justice League#Headquarters. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep , appear to be two non-trivial independent RS mentions about the edifice itself. "Hall of Justice" is used as a synecdoche for the Justice League itself or as a simple gathering point so often that everyone can be forgiven for not finding these--it took me some digging. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  The first source is a discussion of a single bubble, an effectively saying "oh, it's open for public/tourists and provides revenue, smart". Right. But that's not SIGCOV. Ditto for the other source, which compiles passing mentions about dungeons underneath the hall. The problem is we still don't have any source that discusses the importance of the main structure itself. Notability is not inherited, and a discussion of minute trivia related to the Hall (tourism, dungeons) is hard to generalize to the notability of the Hall itself. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but your bar for SIGCOV is simply unreasonably high. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect as there isn't WP:SIGCOV to prove WP:NOTABILITY for this as a separate topic. Many sources treat this as a synonym for the Justice League itself and the others are only passing mentions. Jontesta (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect? Or merge-redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 22:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0  02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Smerge to create a WP:CONSENSUS. Agree with Rorshacma that this doesn't meet policies for a stand-alone article, but redirects are cheap, and editors can find a WP:DUE amount of information to be included at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Keep, a uniquely notable fictional location. BD2412 T 01:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:ITSNOTABLE? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Sources in the article (including a reference that I just added to Robert Greenberger, Justice League: 100 Greatest Moments (2018)) suffice to provide WP:SIGCOV. It has appeared in various iterations of fictional media, and in the real world as a toy set. At least one real-world building has been modeled after the fictional one (I have also added reference to this), which also indicates architectural significance. BD2412 T 03:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• What substantial information is to be found in the 100 Greatest Moments? Looking at the Google Books search, I see plot-only trivial mention after trivial mention, so I don't see how it can be said to provide significant coverage. There appears to be no significant commentary on the structure at all in that source. There doesn't appear to be anything currently in the article that necessitates the current level of depth. Justice League#Headquarters can easily be expanded to two or three paragraphs to include the minor development info and sufficiently describe it in expansive enough detail relative to its weight. TTN (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• For substantial coverage, I would first point to the CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice". That certainly goes beyond being "plot-only". In any case, we would need to keep the current title as a redirect to maintain the edit history of content copied over per the GFDL, but I see nothing on the page that should immediately be deleted, so we would end up copying over the entire thing into an article-length section inside another article. BD2412 T 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• What in particular does an article that simply regurgitates info found elsewhere bring to the table? The only real world information in the article currently attributed to it is a quote that seems to originate from the older of the Cincinnati Enquirer articles. It appears that source could be completely removed without any lost context. My opinions on listicle-farming trash like CBR not counting as a reliable source aside, I don't see how an article created simply to capitalize on search results is in any way significant coverage if it provides no real original commentary on the topic.

• This does not reflect the reality of what the sources say. The assertion that The 100 Greatest Moments provides "plot-only" trivial mention is incorrect. That source also states that the building was "based on Cincinnati's Union Terminal", which is obviously not a "plot-only" detail (unless an in-universe discussion of this design element can be provided), identifies Al Gmuer as the designer of the building for the comics (also not a "plot-only" detail), and characterizes the reaction of fans to the structure (also not a "plot-only" and obviously significant to notability). The CBR article by a well-known writer in the field is not a "listicle" and is a reliable secondary source. Of course it contains information that can be found elsewhere, that's why we use secondary sources. However, the article also describes—not found in any other source that I have seen—the artist's eventual displeasure with having to draw the building due to its complexity, which is also obviously not a "plot-only" element. There has not been a good-faith examination of the sources. !Votes premised on rejecting permissible sources because some editors wish they were impermissible should be discounted. BD2412 T 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what good is supposed to come from pointing out that the referenced content amounts to minor production details. That's textbook trivial coverage. The quote, "In the long run, I hated that building...The way it's designed, it was not easy to draw. I had nightmares about that damn building" comes from this 2009 article (or was at least was the first to use the quote if it originates elsewhere) that is already cited, so that means there is no benefit whatsoever to the CBR article. Though again, that is a minor production detail doesn't help the topic meet GNG or necessitate a full article on the topic. Even without this back and forth on what consitutes reliable and signficant, the amount of real world information cited in the article is extrodinarily trivial. It can all fit within the parent article in a small single paragraph. TTN (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, the CBR source is an originally arranged piece by an expert in the field. It is a reliable source, and it does provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Of course, the details are about a fictional structure, which is no different from having an article on the Death Star or The Simpsons house or Hogwarts. If such details were automatically trivial, we wouldn't have any of these. BD2412 T 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• But if it provides nothing new, then what good is the article in fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage? If you can remove it from this article and lose no context, what purpose does it have? In having nothing new to bring to the table, that solidifies its place as a pop culture fluff piece that exists solely to drive clicks. Primary production details are fine article content, but they are not GNG-fulfilling content. They can be placed in the most relevant space, which would be the main article's section on the topic. To sustain an article, we need a good deal more in terms of commentary and cultural impact. TTN (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• The construction of an actual physical replica of the fictional building is sufficient cultural impact. Multiple of the sources note that the structure is well-known to fans of the comics, a considerable population. BD2412 T 19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• We seem to be arguing "notability" vs WP:Notability. The building is undeniably something culturally recognizable, but that does not currently extend to meeting GNG through reliable sources. As of this time, everything in the article amounts to a few minor sentences that together fail to meet the SIGCOV threshold. Articles don't need to have 15 paragraphs of cultural analysis to meet GNG, but this still isn't cracking more than a paragraph of mostly minor production details. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates