Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalibak

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 redirect to New Gods. (non-admin closure) CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kalibak

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article provide significant real world coverage on the topic. The character doesn't appear to be mentioned in anything that can meet GNG, mentions limited to junk listicles. TTN (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of DC Comics characters: K or more specific list if one exists. I don't see SIGCOV sufficient to make him warrant a stand-alone article; any coverage in licenced, illustrated fanpedias (The DC Comics Encyclopedia: The Definitive Guide to the Characters of the DC Universe, The Essential Superman Encyclopedia) cannot be treated very seriously as they are not independent, limited to plot summary/list of appearances, and not written by scholars or experts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel the character warrants notability if we done the right digging. A recurring dc supervillain / New God and son of Darkseid in many depictions. I usually avoid such AFD but this one stands out as a no-brainer that he should stay. I welcome more opinions on this as always.Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. I am voicing my agreement with @Jhenderson777: on his claim. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to build a stronger argument than bouncing off of someone who hasn't actually presented any sources that could be used to salvage the article. Just a general thing as well, but "Let the page stay" makes your point look weak because it seems you're simply arguing from the standpoint of WP:ILIKEIT. You should try to cite some relevant source, guideline, or policy, but I don't think there are any to be found in this specific case. TTN (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I would show off would be contested I feel. So I learned to give up my feat. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The other person who has been finding proper sources was @Toughpigs:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Gods, which contains a fair amount of detail about the character from both comics and other media. A search for sources turned up a lot of plot information but not enough real-world coverage to justify a standalone article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Gods - He is mentioned in sources covering the New Gods as a whole, but there is not much coverage outside of plot summary on him, specifically, in reliable sources that would really justify an independent article. The New Gods article, where he is already mentioned, would definitely be the more appropriate target than the general List of DC characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs)
Comment - If this page gets redirected to the New Gods, I ask that it get put under the section for the New Gods of Apokolips. A lot of articles that redirected to the redirected List of New Gods page are going to have to go there as well. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of secondary sources in the article, which include Washington Post, Collider, CBR.com, etc, which provide material that explain the character's importance in the mythos. Any information in those sources or the New Gods articles that is not already in the Kalibak article can be copied or composed to it. Nightscream (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really look at them? It's trashy listicles and passing mentions. The Washington Post "article" is literally a single sentence with no actual commentary. There is a reason why the content from those is not actually used in the article, instead just haphazardly shoved into the article with no purpose. TTN (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, those sources are the very definition of trivial. Single sentence mentions in larger articles on the New Gods in general, which is exactly what I stated in my recommendation for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I hear you guys saying is that Darkseid and maybe Orion, Mister Miracle and Big Barda being the only notable major New Gods. We might as hang up New Gods like Desaad, Granny Goodness, Glorious Godfrey, Steppenwolf etc. Because the only time they get good sources that are still existent is when they get film adaptations. It’s possible Kalibak might be in the New Gods film. What then? Anyways these aren’t the only sources. The only non-passive sources though are CBR and there is fan-casting of the New Gods film. CBR is trash to you guys. So back to the drawing board. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Characters are notable if they receive the proper coverage per WP:GNG. Their in-universe relevance and relative importance to the fan-base have no consideration in that process if it has not lead to coverage in reliable sources. The majority of comics characters are not notable, but the sheer number of them means there will still be hundreds of notable articles at the end of the day. I do not believe this is one of them. The sources you've added to the article either barely mention the character, or they're low quality, mass-produced junk that I believe everyone has come to see as unreliable even if the rest of the content of the website is deemed reliable. TTN (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is an multi-media and classic character from the 70's (still ongoing currently in modern comic books) major character created by Jack Kirby of all people. None of this is in-universe reasoning BTW. Sometimes logic should be on the side that he is notable if the news would still focus or some less or more relevant current info. Yes thousand of minor characters are deemed notable thanks to recent and current news that you are using as examples. But familiar New Gods like this are not because you don’t (and don’t want to) find relevant sources on the character and because you are trying to clean up Wikipedia of the subjective GNG and nit-pick. What I don't like is you dodged the film adaptation and other character question and didn’t see my point and decided to be redundant of your obsession of GNG clean up. Also please don’t bring up the other stuff essay I am well aware of that too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts of major and minor characters do not matter to GNG. We have plenty of major characters that'll never have articles and plenty of obscure topics with articles simply because they received the appropriate attention. All that you can say is that major characters are much more likely to have received the coverage necessary to meet GNG, but it is not a guarantee. Film adaptations are the same thing. Major characters in films are more likely to receive attention, but it is not a guarantee (and the film in question seems to be a canceled production). There are plenty of characters in both the MCU and DCEU franchises that do not meet the GNG threshold. TTN (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is a Bible to you lol. Your way of explaining and obsessing and preaching of it amuses me. Anyway still searching so not much to reply for now. But I will say this. It’s about Recent sources now. That’s all it is. It’s a flawed way of saying do not get overboard with the topic in Wikipedia. You are not Wikipedia’s savior for cleaning it up too. In fact it is something Wikipedia is not. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 01:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fond of it but it's better than the alternative. Some sources and info might need to be preserved in my opinion. I think it’s a work of progress until maybe more tie-in media adaption comes of the character. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Gods - the majority of the sources on the article are the comics he appears in themselves, and trivial mentions in more reliable sources, nothing that shows notability. Waxworker (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources key finder seems to be either New Gods or Darkseid. Either that or Google is concealing the sources. Makes me think how many other New Gods villains should have articles to. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 16:38, 13 May 2021 (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.