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 delete. Tone 17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Kraken (Marvel Comics)

Kraken (Marvel Comics) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This is a containment article for four non-notable characters. Aside from a singular minor casting announcement, all sources appear to either be primary or irrelevant. None of the individual characters establish notability, and there is nothing about the overall topic that establishes notability. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it does not fulfill the standards of WP:WAF. It is an unnecessary plot summary. TTN ( talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural keep: Until better explanation is given. Per WP:DELREASON, WP:NEXIST, WP:ARTN, WP:ATD, WP:NNC, and WP:HANDLE, WP:GNG is determined only by the existence of sources, not by the quality of sourcing in the article. If the problem is that it merely "fails to establish notability", then this is not a concern for WP:AfD. Dark knight 2149 01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• This is the only time I will respond to whatever bait this is supposed to be, but this is nonsensical wikilawyering that does absolutely nothing to actually invalidate or counter the nomination rationale. TTN ( talk) 02:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Every deletion procedure, policy, and guideline explicitly says that WP:GNG is not determined by the sources in the article. They also say multiple times not to nominate articles on that basis:

Per WP:ARTN, "Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article."

Per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article."

Per WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

Per WP:GNG, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists. The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."

Do you have a reason for deletion? Because WP:AfD is not clean up. Dark knight 2149 02:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The very fact that I'm making the nomination means I am asserting that suitable sources do not exist. Your point, if you think it should be kept, is to prove me wrong by providing sources. This bunk is absolutely nonsensical badgering wikilawyering that ignores all common sense on how AfDs work. I don't need to formulate a big cookie-cutter rationale to appease whatever you have in your head makes a suitable nomination. If you think I'm being negligent in research on sources, then bring it up somewhere. Okay, last reply forever, going back to never responding to you because this just never works out. TTN ( talk) 02:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Genuine question - If that is, in fact, what you are asserting, then why do nearly all of your rationales (which, at one point, totalled around 10-20 nominations per day within a single topic area) cite some variation of "The article fails to establish notablity" as the rationale? And why do some of your Delete votes outright say "The sources in the article do not establish notablity"? This terminology implies directly that your assessment is based largely (or solely) on the sourcing in the article. It's also incredibly difficult to assert Wikilawyering when someone is citing policy directly and responding to your exact words. Dark knight 2149 02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment The issue here appears to be whether TTN A) Conducted a WP:Before search to look for sources and then nominated the page for deletion after determining there likely were none, or B) just looked at the sources already on the page and nominated it for deletion after determining they were not enough. If it's A, that is fine, but if it's B, that's a problem. My understanding of policy is that the burden is on the nominator to conduct at least a basic search for sources for notability or alternatives to deletion, rather than place the burden on other editors to do that work after the fact. Rhino131 ( talk) 03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Rhino131: I should mention that even if we (for the sake of argument) disregard WP:BEFORE as procedural, we're still left with the fact that every other deletion policy and guideline (listed above) says point blank:

1. WP:GNG is not determined by the sources listed in the article, but the existence of sources period.

2. The state of sourcing in the article is not a legitimate reason to nominate something for deletion.

The aforementioned policies/guidelines aren't even vague about it. If an article fails to establish notablity, that's certainly a reason to improve an article, but is not a primary reason for deletion.

In the comment above, TTN claims that the nominations themselves are an indication that he is aware of a topic's coverage and is implying that the articles do not pass WP:GNG based on that. The only problem is that the vast majority of his nominations and votes say the exact opposite: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. Dark knight 2149 06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Rhino131: As you can see above, their point is some kind of nonsensical, vindictive, nitpicky tirade based on tense-usage that nobody looking to make a fair criticism would make. I have no particular idea what purposely muddling my words is supposed to accomplish. I assume this will lead to them being blocked again if they're going to return to their tunnel-vision campaign. As to your question, I gave it a basic look-over in the provided source links while modifying the search name as necessary, as well as a separate search for the TV character. Hydra codename/creature brings up absolutely nothing, and the TV character lacks substantial coverage in the news articles related to the show (though the character alone couldn't support keeping this particular version of the article). TTN ( talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ TTN: Thanks for answering. I think if you has said that in the nomination, there would be no problem (or else Darkknight's claims would be less merited). That way it would read "I don't think this topic is notable and here is my proof", whereas before it read "I'm asserting this topic is not notable, now prove me wrong", and I do agree a reasonable argument could be made that is against policy and against the purpose of an AFD. Rhino131 ( talk) 13:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Rhino131: I've found that no matter the expansiveness or brevity of my nominations, someone seeking to complain will complain regardless. I understand your point, but I feel it's just assumed at this point as well. If it's revealed there are an ungodly amount of easily uncovered sources, then I obviously failed on my end of things and someone can rightfully complain. Whether I state it or not, the sources or lack thereof will show that. If their response had been an off-the-cuff good faith recommendation, it would be one thing, but this is some kind of pre-formulated "gotcha" plan that fails in the face of the fact that hundreds of closers have ended my AfDs without a singe mention of this being an issue as far as I can recall. TTN ( talk) 14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Nobody has twisted anything you have said, unless you deny having used "Delete. The article fails to establish notability" or "Fails GNG, the sources in the article do not establish notability" in nearly all of your votes and proposals. As much as you are trying to walk that back, there are only minuscule ways to interpret that and none of them conform to GNG or DELREASON.

If what you are saying about understanding GNG or performing a source check is true, there is a rather simple solution to this conundrum - not saying the exact opposite of that and using a legitimate rationale in your nominations.

As for "If their response had been an off-the-cuff good faith recommendation, it would be one thing", you are proving right now that that's not the case. In fact, I don't believe that the spurious allegations are helping you make your case. Dark knight 2149 18:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep The reason why this page was made was because its previous page ( Kraken in popular culture) needed to be split. There hasn't been any problem prior, why should there be one now? Voicebox64 ( talk) 05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• That article is an absolute mess, but it would be very easy to trim both Marvel and DC down to the two sentences the topics deserve. Regardless of that, splitting out an article over size concerns does not mean the child article is inherently viable. If it cannot meet WP:GNG, then it does not need to exist. TTN ( talk) 13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. While I would strongly encourage TTN to add a statement confirming they had done a BEFORE to their future nominations, this technical advice aside, my BEFORE failed to turn out any sources, so since WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a pretty bad argument, and nobody procuded any to discuss here, well, there is little we can do. This apears to be the usual COMICCRUFT based on PRIMARY sources, mentions in passing and nothing more and so it fails WP:NFICTION/GNG. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Skipping over the WP:NOTHERE crusade by DarkKnight, the article itself fails WP:GNG as concisely stated by TTN in the original nom. It's Wikia material without non-trivial real world reception and is solely WP:INUNIVERSE content. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 19:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • So far, everyone here has said the same thing I have. Likewise I have always cited legitimate policies, some (a vocal minority) just choose not to hear it. You cite WP:PERNOM, yet there is nothing in the rationale itself of substance, unless you are talking about the general GNG guideline, which was only brought up in the explosive bad faith responses above. The slew of "Article fails to establish notablity" nominations are a lot closer to NOTHERE than me pointing out the policy violations, especially when TTN was already sanctioned by ArbCom for doing the same thing with redirects. Dark knight 2149 07:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There appears to exist non-primary sources here, at least not without a reductive to take of "sources that are interested in X cover X" which would make anything non-notable. A minor topic, for sure, but seems on the keepable side of borderline notability with potential for long-term growth. SnowFire ( talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm confused as to what sources you think you're seeing, either in the article or in Google searches. There's really nothing relevant to establishing notability whatsoever. TTN ( talk) 12:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete- none of the sourcing either in the article or available elsewhere is sufficient to sustain this article. Furthermore, it's a confusing hodgepodge of four related but distinct topics, which is not the way things should be handled. On top of that, it's written in an in-universe style more suitable for Wiia than this encyclopedia. If this article was created because Kraken in popular culture was too big, then that was a mistake- it would have been better to just trim the cruft. Reyk _YO! 13:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - None of the versions of the character listed here appear to have enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. As far as I can tell, there is only a single secondary source being used in the current article, and that is nothing but a casting announcement for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., that only has a single sentence that isn't just copied straight from the Marvel Database. Searching for additional sources does not turn up much on any of the listed versions. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:11, 27 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.