Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timber Wolf (comics)

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 no consensus. Given the bounty of discussion I would ask a minimum of 3 months and preferably at least 6 before any renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timber Wolf (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How many other Timber Wolf characters are there in comics? --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since people that say “not notable” will never check and make sure if the character is not notable I will add a potential sources list. My stance is Keep obviously and I am exhausted on explaining why.Jhenderson 777 23:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I am not trying any more. I noticed more sources. But I am still voting on keep. Nothing will suit you anyway. Just like nothing will change my vote. Jhenderson 777
Timber Wolf has also been discussed as part of Brian Michael Bendis' new Legion of Super-Heroes lineup:
as well as listings for verifiability in the usual encyclopedias:
I think collectively this helps to demonstrate notability. I'll add these to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use these as resources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus H Christ. Not this stuff again.
For the Nth time: first of all, this article easily meets all of the 7 Virtues. Specifically, it easily meets (or can be made to meet) the WP:GNG. Most of our articles don't (as you'd see if you checked a large enough sample size of random articles). It's otherwise a perfectly good article, too -- better than our average article, in fact (again, check it against a random sample if you don't believe me).
Anyway, to delete an article that unquestionably meets the WP:GNG requires an extraordinary argument, far beyond "I don't think this guy is notable" which is what we got.
Second of all, the very first pillar of the Wikipedia:Five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia". The opening words are "Our encyclopedia...", and this phrase is bluelinked to WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, which opens with -- I'll reproduce the format here:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
An encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge.
Wikipedia is freely available, and incorporates elements of
general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.
See where it says "Wikipedia... incorporates elements of... specialized encyclopedias"? They put it in big bold letters so that nobody would miss it. Supposedly.
So, what is the DC Comics Encyclopedia? What is the DC Universe? What is the Encyclopedia of American Animated Television Shows? All of which have entries on this entity (and there are probably others). Are these interpretive dances? Are they housing projects in Pueblo, Colorado, or stars in the constellation Cygnus, or 12th century Dutch priests, or any other thing except specialized encyclopedias? They're not.
And it's not like the nominator has not previously been shown this -- many times, in fact, I believe. He knows perfectly well that this entity is covered in depth, in several encyclopedia and elsewhere too. He does. He could edit the article to include these refs. But he's got a different agenda, doesn't he.
I'm pissed. I was getting ready to write an article, and instead I have to with this nonsense. This is not what AfD is for. It's tiresome and it's got to end. Herostratus (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody really cares about your soapbox rambling. Just say if you think it can pass WP:GNG and how. By the way, nothing that you posted helps it pass GNG. TTN (talk) 01:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We'll take this up at another venue. Herostratus (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any effort to establish notability before nomination?--Moxy 🍁 07:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends if you'd say the above links constitute significant coverage relevant to WP:GNG. I'd say I have a fundamental disagreement with many sources presented in these AfDs, topical pop culture stuff that barely mention the character, junk listicles from dubious sites, character encyclopedias that are entirely factual with zero commentary, etc. When I see links like those in a search, I completely ignore them as trivial coverage. TTN (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep and redirect seem tight. Nominate to relist for 7 days
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist - the alternative would probably have been closing NC, which could have meant doing it all again at some point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am one of the keep voters and I am plan to seek more articles to show more notability and maybe improve the article. I think some of what @Toughpigs: placed is a good start but not enough so I encourage him to dig more and copyedit the article more (not just put them in see also). Bottom line I feel almost all the Silver Age Legion of Superheroes are notable. Yes I said that! So I am biased on the keep stance. With good reasoning. They have been around a while and rebooted with very popular writers etc. Especially this character. He even got his own comic book. He was even compared to (pop-culture wise) as the Wolverine before there was Wolverine. So anyway here comes the link dump at the bottom to help preserve the article even though Imperfect :

Jhenderson 777 18:22, 3 April 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.