751:
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).
803:
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.
991:, 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.
481:. 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."
1088:- 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
1117:. 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.
519:
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.
251:
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
776:
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
750:
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
518:
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
1019:. 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.
802:
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
586:
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
898:
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
546:? 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.
443:
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
587:
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.
533:
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
456:
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
79:
832:
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
220:
928:
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
387:
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.
924:. 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
301:
281:
829:
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.
74:
173:
214:
1037:
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.
642:
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
180:
120:
146:
141:
105:
150:
133:
840:, 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.
1126:
1105:
1078:
1046:
1028:
1009:
978:
945:
912:
889:
858:
812:
786:
760:
736:
635:
The aforementioned policies/guidelines aren't even vague about it. If an article fails to establish notablity, that's certainly a reason to
596:
564:
528:
513:
397:
378:
313:
293:
273:
58:
1003:
852:
730:
558:
507:
372:
983:
So far, everyone here has said the same thing I have. Likewise I have always cited legitimate policies, some (a vocal minority) just
665:
235:
202:
352:
is determined only by the existence of sources, not by the quality of sourcing in the article. If the problem is that it merely
100:
93:
17:
777:
prove me wrong", and I do agree a reasonable argument could be made that is against policy and against the purpose of an AFD.
612:
as procedural, we're still left with the fact that every other deletion policy and guideline (listed above) says point blank:
961:
as concisely stated by TTN in the original nom. It's Wikia material without non-trivial real world reception and is solely
925:
196:
137:
114:
110:
410:
is not determined by the sources in the article. They also say multiple times not to nominate articles on that basis:
1057:
662:
1143:
1089:
877:
192:
40:
998:
847:
725:
659:
646:
based on that. The only problem is that the vast majority of his nominations and votes say the exact opposite:
553:
502:
453:
367:
668:
242:
129:
64:
1139:
36:
630:
2. The state of sourcing in the article is not a legitimate reason to nominate something for deletion.
962:
885:
492:
472:
1122:
993:
842:
720:
548:
497:
448:
362:
325:
228:
208:
1024:
930:
782:
592:
1113:- None of the versions of the character listed here appear to have enough coverage to pass the
972:
954:
939:
261:
89:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1138:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
838:"If their response had been an off-the-cuff good faith recommendation, it would be one thing"
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
988:
627:
is not determined by the sources listed in the article, but the existence of sources period.
609:
583:
436:
345:
329:
881:
1092:
was too big, then that was a mistake- it would have been better to just trim the cruft.
880:) needed to be split. There hasn't been any problem prior, why should there be one now?
1118:
1099:
1069:
984:
418:
333:
1114:
1042:
1020:
958:
908:
900:
808:
797:
778:
756:
745:
643:
624:
603:
588:
524:
488:
467:"If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."
462:
407:
393:
357:
349:
341:
337:
309:
289:
269:
257:
253:
968:
935:
167:
1093:
54:
452:
of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or
1038:
904:
804:
771:
752:
520:
389:
305:
285:
265:
821:
Nobody has twisted anything you have said, unless you deny having used
608:
I should mention that even if we (for the sake of argument) disregard
479:
Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists
406:
Every deletion procedure, policy, and guideline explicitly says that
827:"Fails GNG, the sources in the article do not establish notability"
876:
The reason why this page was made was because its previous page (
1134:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1060:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
80:
Articles for deletion/Kraken (Marvel Comics) (2nd nomination)
302:
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions
582:
The issue here appears to be whether TTN A) Conducted a
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
695:
692:
689:
686:
683:
680:
677:
674:
671:
656:
653:
650:
647:
544:"The sources in the article do not establish notablity"
282:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
163:
159:
155:
227:
639:
an article, but is not a primary reason for deletion.
1066:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
823:"Delete. The article fails to establish notability"
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1146:). No further edits should be made to this page.
957:crusade by DarkKnight, the article itself fails
300:Note: This discussion has been included in the
280:Note: This discussion has been included in the
425:Article content does not determine notability
241:
8:
121:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
75:Articles for deletion/Kraken (Marvel Comics)
487:Do you have a reason for deletion? Because
256:, and it does not fulfill the standards of
538:as the rationale? And why do some of your
536:"The article fails to establish notablity"
299:
279:
324:Until better explanation is given. Per
72:
936:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
71:
903:, then it does not need to exist.
24:
356:, then this is not a concern for
431:and not of a Knowledge article."
427:. Notability is a property of a
106:Introduction to deletion process
354:"fails to establish notability"
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1127:16:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
1106:13:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
1079:10:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
1047:12:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
1029:02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
1010:07:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
979:19:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
946:05:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
913:13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
890:05:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
859:18:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
813:14:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
787:13:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
761:13:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
737:06:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
597:03:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
565:02:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
529:02:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
514:02:27, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
398:02:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
379:01:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
314:14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
294:14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
274:14:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
59:17:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
446:Notability requires only the
96:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1163:
1090:Kraken in popular culture
878:Kraken in popular culture
1136:Please do not modify it.
262:unnecessary plot summary
32:Please do not modify it.
252:article does not meet
130:Kraken (Marvel Comics)
70:AfDs for this article:
65:Kraken (Marvel Comics)
985:choose not to hear it
926:WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES
94:Articles for deletion
542:votes outright say
953:Skipping over the
1081:
1077:
976:
316:
296:
111:Guide to deletion
101:How to contribute
1154:
1076:
1074:
1067:
1065:
1063:
1061:
1006:
1001:
996:
967:
942:
855:
850:
845:
839:
828:
824:
801:
775:
749:
733:
728:
723:
607:
561:
556:
551:
545:
537:
510:
505:
500:
375:
370:
365:
355:
322:Procedural keep:
246:
245:
231:
183:
171:
153:
91:
34:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1144:deletion review
1104:
1082:
1070:
1068:
1056:
1054:
1004:
999:
994:
977:
944:
940:
853:
848:
843:
837:
826:
822:
795:
769:
743:
731:
726:
721:
601:
559:
554:
549:
543:
535:
508:
503:
498:
373:
368:
363:
353:
188:
179:
144:
128:
125:
88:
85:
68:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1160:
1158:
1149:
1148:
1130:
1129:
1108:
1098:
1064:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1032:
1031:
1014:
1013:
1012:
966:
948:
934:
918:
917:
916:
915:
893:
892:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
834:
830:
816:
815:
790:
789:
764:
763:
740:
739:
640:
633:
632:
631:
628:
616:
615:
614:
613:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
485:
484:
483:
469:
459:
451:
433:
430:
412:
411:
401:
400:
382:
381:
318:
317:
297:
249:
248:
185:
124:
123:
118:
108:
103:
86:
84:
83:
82:
77:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1159:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1075:
1073:
1062:
1059:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1002:
997:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
974:
970:
964:
963:WP:INUNIVERSE
960:
956:
952:
949:
947:
943:
937:
932:
927:
923:
920:
919:
914:
910:
906:
902:
897:
896:
895:
894:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
872:
871:
860:
857:
856:
851:
846:
835:
831:
820:
819:
818:
817:
814:
810:
806:
799:
794:
793:
792:
791:
788:
784:
780:
773:
768:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
747:
742:
741:
738:
735:
734:
729:
724:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
681:
678:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
651:
648:
645:
641:
638:
634:
629:
626:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
611:
605:
600:
599:
598:
594:
590:
585:
581:
578:
577:
566:
563:
562:
557:
552:
541:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
516:
515:
512:
511:
506:
501:
494:
490:
486:
482:
480:
474:
470:
468:
464:
460:
458:
455:
450:
447:
445:
438:
434:
432:
428:
426:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
383:
380:
377:
376:
371:
366:
359:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
244:
240:
237:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
194:
191:
190:Find sources:
186:
182:
178:
175:
169:
165:
161:
157:
152:
148:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
126:
122:
119:
116:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
98:
97:
95:
90:
81:
78:
76:
73:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1135:
1133:
1110:
1100:
1094:
1085:
1071:
1055:
1016:
992:
950:
921:
873:
841:
833:nominations.
719:
636:
579:
547:
539:
496:
493:not clean up
478:
476:
466:
442:
440:
424:
422:
361:
326:WP:DELREASON
321:
250:
238:
232:
224:
217:
211:
205:
199:
189:
176:
87:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
987:. You cite
931:WP:NFICTION
260:. It is an
215:free images
1072:Sandstein
955:WP:NOTHERE
941:reply here
882:Voicebox64
1140:talk page
1119:Rorshacma
989:WP:PERNOM
610:WP:BEFORE
584:WP:Before
457:article."
449:existence
437:WP:NEXIST
346:WP:HANDLE
330:WP:NEXIST
37:talk page
1142:or in a
1058:Relisted
1021:SnowFire
965:content.
933:/GNG. --
798:Rhino131
779:Rhino131
746:Rhino131
604:Rhino131
589:Rhino131
454:citation
444:notable.
174:View log
115:glossary
39:or in a
969:ZXCVBNM
836:As for
637:improve
580:Comment
429:subject
419:WP:ARTN
334:WP:ARTN
221:WP refs
209:scholar
147:protect
142:history
92:New to
1115:WP:GNG
1111:Delete
1086:Delete
1000:knight
959:WP:GNG
951:Delete
922:Delete
901:WP:GNG
849:knight
727:knight
644:WP:GNG
625:WP:GNG
555:knight
540:Delete
504:knight
489:WP:AfD
473:WP:GNG
463:WP:ATD
408:WP:GNG
369:knight
358:WP:AfD
350:WP:GNG
344:, and
342:WP:NNC
338:WP:ATD
258:WP:WAF
254:WP:GNG
193:Google
151:delete
50:delete
236:JSTOR
197:books
181:Stats
168:views
160:watch
156:links
16:<
1123:talk
1095:Reyk
1043:talk
1025:talk
1017:Keep
1005:2149
995:Dark
973:TALK
909:talk
886:talk
874:Keep
854:2149
844:Dark
809:talk
783:talk
757:talk
732:2149
722:Dark
593:talk
560:2149
550:Dark
525:talk
509:2149
499:Dark
471:Per
461:Per
435:Per
417:Per
394:talk
374:2149
364:Dark
310:talk
290:talk
270:talk
229:FENS
203:news
164:logs
138:talk
134:edit
55:Tone
1101:YO!
1039:TTN
905:TTN
825:or
805:TTN
772:TTN
753:TTN
623:1.
521:TTN
491:is
390:TTN
306:TTN
286:TTN
266:TTN
243:TWL
172:– (
1125:)
1045:)
1027:)
911:)
888:)
811:)
785:)
759:)
718:.
715:,
712:,
709:,
706:,
703:,
700:,
697:,
694:,
691:,
688:,
685:,
682:,
679:,
676:,
673:,
670:,
667:,
664:,
661:,
658:,
655:,
652:,
649:,
595:)
527:)
495:.
475:,
465:,
439:,
421:,
396:)
360:.
348:,
340:,
336:,
332:,
328:,
312:)
304:.
292:)
284:.
272:)
264:.
223:)
166:|
162:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
52:.
1121:(
1041:(
1023:(
975:)
971:(
938:|
907:(
884:(
807:(
800::
796:@
781:(
774::
770:@
755:(
748::
744:@
606::
602:@
591:(
523:(
477:"
441:"
423:"
392:(
308:(
288:(
268:(
247:)
239:·
233:·
225:·
218:·
212:·
206:·
200:·
195:(
187:(
184:)
177:·
170:)
132:(
117:)
113:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.