Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caregiver (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 wasKeep Interested editors may merge/redirect as they see fit. Looks like it will be no small task, and not one for somebody unfamiliar with the subject matter. JERRY talk contribs 02:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caregiver (comics)

Caregiver (comics) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:FICT Minor component of fictional work John Nagle (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - Minor comic character, not notable per WP:FICT. Suggest using Wikia's Marvel Comics database instead. --John Nagle (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a new place for this kind of material: Wikipedia Annex. The procedures are new, but there's a system in place for moving minor fictional material out of Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. But the mission statement says that it's for articles on fictional works that are "too detailed for Wikipedia". Isn't that rather the reverse of being a home for minor fictional characters? And isn't it more of a holding area than an actual home for the article?SteveG (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to think about moving this sort of thing to Wikia. On the one hand, Wikia actually collects this stuff, while it's not really "encyclopedic" under Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, there are legal conflict of interest problems in recommending on non-profit Wikipedia that content be moved to the profit-making Wikia, because many of the same people are involved with both organizations. That policy issue is being discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --John Nagle (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with your COI concern. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
nb: that the Wikia annex, not the Wikipedia annex. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • merge & redirect - though a minor character, she could be utilized as part of a members list in the Elder Gods page. The seems to be a modest to moderate amount of info on this character, I which could strenthen the article of the Elders. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep or merge - Meets the standards of notability set by hundreds of other comic book characters that have been given a Wiki page. If some generic supervillain that only appeared once or twice in a comic series from twenty or thirty years ago is notable, how is it that the Caregiver, who fills a unique role in the Marvel Universe, is somehow less notable? Why target Caregiver for deletion, but not, for example, the Locksmith or Megatak--or, for that matter, other obscure Elders of the Universe such as Trader, Astronomer, or Obliterator? OTOH, the current Elders of the Universe page is a mess and it may be a good idea to provide sub-entries therein for each Elder. --SteveG (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • While I'm not crazy about the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS logic, I do think it's important to stress that Caregiver does in fact fulfill the same requirements that 98% of the other comic-book related articles on Wikipedia fulfill: she's had multiple appearances in multiple titles. And no one's really come forward with a decisive statement of why this character, in particular, is too minor to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Ford MF (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, if there's a set standard for establishing a comic book character's notability, I'd like to know what it is. If there isn't, then one is left to infer a standard set by the thousands of articles for comics characters out there. The fact is, few of them have been analyzed in The New York Times. Primary references to appearances and the occasional secondary reference to a Marvel.com page are about as good as we're likely to get. --SteveG (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or Keep for now but it will be a lot of work for someone. The Elder's article doesn't lend itself to just adding this. I'd suggest that that a list of "minor" Elder's should be created. See if the original editors are willing to do that (thus the keep for now) Hobit (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, deleting stubs deprives us of material for a main article. As it is, the Elders with stubs could be mereged, and the major Elders could have links to their main articles. --SteveG (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • delete as non-notable. More circular references back to primary sources; no secondary sources. --Jack Merridew 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So, what's a suitable secondary source for a comic book character? --SteveG (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hypothetically? How about a character analysis in The New York Times? --Jack Merridew 12:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So basically there should be Wikipedia articles about Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman, and that's it? Ford MF (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Not hypothetically; practically. Think link to marvunapp doesn't qualify? --SteveG (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2008 (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.