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 keep‎. AfD is not a vote, and early discussion didn't favor the keep camp despite its majority. As discussion continued, additional sources were identified and swayed discussion without further rebuttal from editors advocating other outcomes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (character)

[edit]

[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)

All of the non-primary sources that discuss him are mostly top ten lists that don't go into extensive detail, and the others are either from content farms screenrant and CBR, or simply talking about who'll be cast as him in the up-coming kraven movie. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Industrial Insect (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete the top ten lists but keep the character since he's one of the first and longest recurring villains for Spider-Man and Marvel in general. Jdionio (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, delete the lists, agree on that. Sqnqban (talk)< Sqnqban (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC) blocked sock Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jdionio:. I agree with the fact that Chameleon is the first and longest recurring enemy of Spider-Man. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Lazy Before gets lazy vote. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a long-running spider-man villain is not any indication of notability. Without reliable, secondary sources, there is nothing to create an article on. Number of appearances of a character means nothing. Industrial Insect (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not need "extensive detail", we just need sources indicating a topic's notability. And I do not see why we should dismiss either screenrant or CBR. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on improvement today to add additional sources to this article. BOZ (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. No significant coverage on Chameleon from reliable sources has been demonstrated yet that will make the article pass notability standards, so I would remind the closer to factor that into their decision. Screen Rant and CBR are indeed contentfarms, that talk about every comic book character ever made, and are no proof of significance. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether I'm more disappointed in CBR or your American-centric definition of "every comic book character ever made" =( Might be worth popping the old hyperbole on the backburner for the time being, though.

BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been better off saying "every Marvel/DC comic book character", but my point still stands. Within that subset, it's not a reliable gauge of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'd argue that focusing on two publishers implies some sort of editorial discretion, but if they just list every single Marvel character I can see why that would be relevant to this particular AfD.

You've raised my hopes and dashed them quite expertly, sir. Bravo! BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information into List of Marvel Comics Characters: C. Unlike a lot of the current submissions, I can definitely see this guy being notable, but as much as I like Chameleon, no sources have been given from neither the nominator nor any of the people participating in this AfD. If a search is performed and actual sources that discuss the Chameleon are found out there (Which, being honest, there's a good chance either way) then ping me and I'll willingly change my vote. As it stands, a merge is probably for the best, because Chameleon's entry at the list only contains a link to his article right now. If that's gone, no info on Chameleon will be on Wikipedia, which is a huge loss of info. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“We do not need extensive detail” Huh? Industrial Insect (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not insisting we should have a whole page merge (Not all the info in this article is necessary) but we should at least carry over some information, even at a baseline level, for the character list. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is technically no loss of information as off-site Wikis already have a more detailed examination of the character. Marvel Database has every version of the character to ever exist. So, I am not worried about potentially losing the article, as plot information can always be used from there in the off chance Chameleon becomes notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NO. JosephWC (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the recent edits made on the article. There are still other sources than can be used if this is really necessary. Higher Further Faster (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C - Being "the first and and longest recurring enemy of Spider-Man" is not a valid argument for Keeping if there is not significant coverage in reliable sources on the character. And the sources in the article are not that, being largely things that are not valid reliable sources for establishing notability such as voice actor databases or top ten churnalism lists from sources generally not considered to be WP:RS. I also did not find anything in my own searches that would help - a few very brief mentions of his role in Spider-Man's mythos, but no actual significant coverage. Good enough for a merge to the character list I'd say, not for keeping as an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've analyzed the sources currently present in the article, and this is the current status on them.

The first source, discussing the Top Ten ranked Marvel Shows on IMDb (Which is already a sketchy source at best) mentions Chameleon for one sentence alongside several other characters, such as Rhino and Black Cat. The second, a top thirty list, isn't necessarily a horrible source, but it's just a glorified plot summary, and doesn't actually contain any commentary on the character. The next, a "Ten Most Iconic Spider-Man Villains" listicle, barely touches on the character at all. IGN's source, admittedly, is pretty good, containing some good commentary on the Chameleon character.

"The fact that he’s been such a mainstay of Spidey’s rogues gallery ever since is a testament to his enduring appeal. This isn’t a villain who relies on strength or brute force, but rather subterfuge and deception.... He’s a fascinating villain, and often quite scary and unpredictable as he slips into a new role."

But the IGN source is the only source in the article that's half decent, and it's a listicle to boot. I'd say it's worth mentioning should this be merged into the characters list, but there is nowhere near enough based off the current sourcing state to justify the article's existence, and from what I can gather, BEFOREs have not turned up much beyond that. I like Chameleon, but there's just not enough. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: C#Chameleon, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principal. There is nothing that bars a source from being used merely because it presents its content as a list. The only relevant questions are whether the source is independent, has an editorial policy conducive to reliability, and discusses the subject in sufficient depth. Everything else is just bias against popular culture. BD2412 T 01:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even look at the sources in the article? I never said being a listicle disbarred it from being used in an article, but the fact it's the only thing that exists that shows Chameleon's notability is the kicker there. Every other source has minimal content in it, and just being mentioned doesn't make the character notable. The IGN article is good, but unless you have some other sources that haven't been seen yet, there just isn't enough out there for Chameleon. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources already discussed, there is independent reliable source coverage in books about comics and pop culture, such as The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood,[1] 500 Comicbook Villains,[2] and The Encyclopedia of Super Villains.[3] --RL0919 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I am unable to access the relevant pages where Chameleon is discussed. What do these sections say on Chameleon? These could definitely be good sources, but I'm afraid I can't make a judgement call on them until I see what's inside of them. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're not that hard to find: [4][5][6] BOZ (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't presume too much about access – sometimes sites are restricted based on a vistor's location. But I can summarize: They all give broadly similar information about who created him, when he first appeared, and what story arcs he appeared in, with some other varying bits – for example, The Supervillain Book compares him to another Ditko character. They all give similar evaluations of the character: he's generally a minor villain that is notable mostly for being Spider-Man's first super-foe. But for AfD purposes the important thing is that they all thought he was interesting enough to write multiple dedicated paragraphs about him, not just a passing mention, thus providing support for notability. (As an aside for editors who are interested in working on the article, you may want to also check Understanding Superhero Comic Books: A History of Key Elements, Creators, Events and Controversies by Alex Grand, 100 Things Spider-Man Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die by Mark Ginocchio and Tom DeFalco, and Spider-Man Confidential: From Comic Icon to Hollywood Hero by Edward Gross. These all look like they might have useful information about the Chameleon character, but I don't have enough access to them to confirm whether they have enough to support notability.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. For whatever reason, I couldn't access those pages via the previous links provided. In any case, glossing over them, 500 Comic Book Villains does have a nice blurb on him in the form of "...the Chameleon doesn't otherwise number among Stan Lee and Steve Ditko's more memorable creations." Not sure if I'm missing a bit in The Supervillain Book or not (Given that Chameleon's bit is at the edge of the page and I cannot access the page after it) but all I see there is just a summary of Chameleon's appearances. The Encyclopedia of Super-Villains is also just a glorified summary of the Chameleon character, offering no commentary other than "The Chameleon is a minor super-villain in the Spider-Man pantheon." I'm not sure how effective that is as commentary, but I suppose it exists. I'd say that, combined with the IGN article, it may barely meet the threshold for an article, but even then it is incredibly weak. Not too sure on the other book sources RL0919 listed, since I don't believe I have full access to those books either. I'm unopposed to Weak Keeping the article, should that become the consensus, but it should definitely have a notability tag at the top of the page given that his sourcing is rather weak. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep re User:B2412. I don't care much about comic books or Marvel Universe characters but this is a well put together, referenced article on a character with an established history and there is absolutely no good reason to merge it with something else. Keep and close. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well-made article, but the references are very lacking in terms of significant coverage. There is little to no information on Chameleon's development, and as stated above, there is very little in the way of actual discussion on the character. I don't know if RL0919's sources will change that, but in the article's present state, there is nothing but plot summary in the article. Plot summary does not justify a separate article. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not the place for cleanup. Improve, rewrite, expand, whatever, but keep it. Do not merge it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still well within the realm of AfD to determine if the subject is notable. There's no need for cleanup if nothing justifies the article's existence. If there are no sources discussing Chameleon, then his article has nothing to stand on, rewrites of the current plot summary or not. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a large number of “keep” votes above. It ‘s frankly ridiculous to nominate a referenced article like this instead of improving upon it. Too darn many deletionists around who delete or merge just for the sake of legalism. Keep and close. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to state that I am not a "deletionist." In the case of Chameleon, I'd love to keep the article around, but his sourcing state is incredibly weak. In any case, I don't wish to drag this debate out given the sheer number of Keep votes. I still stand by Chameleon not having a strong sourcing state, but the book sources provided by RL0919 above are barely enough to keep it around for now. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it, rewrite it, whatever. Deleting or merging it isn’t an appropriate remedy. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

''''KEEP''' Don't be contrarian to be that guy. If you wanna fix up and re-focus, that's fine but dont delete a long running Marvel character. JosephWC (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2023 (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.