Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

19 September 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

Impasse (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An incredibly minor fictional character that, from what I can tell, only appeared in one, single issue of a comic. The one non-primary source being used in the article simply summarizes the plot of that single appearance. Searches turned up absolutely nothing else, not even brief mentions, on the character in reliable sources. Even fan wikis like the Marvel Database don't have an entry on the character. The character is as completely non-notable as a fictional character can possibly be, and is a complete failure of the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I touched upon this in another similar AFD earlier today, but this particular case is a even bigger example of why a Merge to that article is improper. A throwaway adversary that appeared in one issue of a comic is not a "supporting character" of Iron Fist and Luke Cage. Listing the character on that page as if they were is outright misleading. Rorshacma (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of where it is, a completely inconsequential character that made one single-issue appearance is too non-notable to be merged or mentioned anywhere. The very act of covering the character on Wikipedia in any capacity would create more notability for the character than actually exists. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a different objection from "listing him under supporting characters is misleading". The fact that the character has received its own entry in the specialized Encyclopedia of Super-Villains (although that one differs somewhat in nature to our encyclopedia here) in my view gives him enough notability, obviously not for a stand-alone article, but for a two-sentence summary in a list. And that view is not based on personal evaluation of the primary material. It's also one common way lists work. And I don't see a benefit in not having this condensed information. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so non-notable we honestly don't even need a mention. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Delete and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Apollo AR924 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT. Seems only notable within the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and doesn't appear to warrant a standalone article. Article did not exist prior to the explosions, nor seemingly any reliable sources covering it, failing the "sustained coverage" requirement of NPRODUCT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This particular model of pager seems to be notable only in the context of the 2024 Lebanon pager explosions. I can find no mention of "Gold Apollo AR-924," "Gold Apollo AR924" or "Gold Apollo AR" outside of news sources reporting the Israeli bombings. "Gold Apollo pager" returns only results for these news articles, the company's website, patent documents, and similar. The sources currently cited at the article fail the criteria for addressing the article topic "directly," as in the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG.
While the particular model of pager is likely to receive a good amount of (temporary) media scrutiny from a few outlets, this will likely be only in the context of the above-mentioned bombings. Although WP:SUSTAINED does not apply to non-BLP articles, WP:NPRODUCT does, and although secondary sources refer to this particular device, there seems to be no claim to notability outside of this single event, for which we already have an article. Thus, I believe this article fails to establish notability for the topic, and our status as not an indiscriminate collection of information is applicable. Evan (talk|contribs) 00:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]