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. Those arguing keep or merge simply haven't addressed the problems raised: that the list is a colection of trivia, unencyclopedic and based on OR. Both keep and merge opinions seem to simply express a liking of / enjoyment reading the topic and point to other similar lists. Policy-based reasons for keeping are few. WjBscribe 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Comics endearments[edit]

List of Marvel Comics endearments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - trivial beyond belief. That Stan Lee or some other editor or whoever called someon by an adjectival name once or frequently is a ridiculous criterion for a list. Otto4711 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Otto's right - this one is incredibly trivial. Philippe Beaudette 03:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One can't dismiss the context. These endearments were part of the direct reason that Marvel went from a minor upstart with eight titles a month to a pop-culture conglomerate. It wasn't just the quality of the stores -- lots of critically acclaimed comics, movies, TV shows, etc. never find success -- but from the deliberately familial sense that these endearments created. Aside from the importance as an historical marketing tool, many (such as "Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man") have entered the popular lexicon. --Tenebrae 04:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Tenebrae's argument would best apply to an article on the usage of the nicknames, provided sources discussing the phenomenom could be found. Maxamegalon2000 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question If all of these are by Stan Lee (and so far as I know they are), then merge to his article, or rename to make it clear that we're talking about his practices, not Marvel's per se, even if they have adopted them. I'd say that would be a reason to cover the practice in his article, since influencing a major comic book publisher is a notable act in itself. I don't know if somebody has covered this in any Stan Lee biographies off-hand, but it certainly seems possible. FrozenPurpleCube 05:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I can see how this has some value. But that value is geared more towards an encyclopedia covering either comic books or marvel specifically. In a general use encyclopedia it seems out of place. Also, looking at the guide lines for the creator articles (WP:BIO) and character article (WP:CMC) it seems the inclusion of "nicknames" is frowned on in those places. Since that is where you would normally expect to find this stuff, this list begins to look very out of place.
  (Note: the character nicknames were not limited to use in the editorial texts, they permeate the scripted dialogues through out the comics in question. I'm surprised that Hulk's terms for other characters didn't make the list.) — J Greb 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You need to know the context. These are a bigger piece of comics history than people who haven't read as many comics might realize. I'm not sure "endearments" is the best term for these nicknames, but these expressions played a surprisingly important role in distinguishing Marvel Comics from its rivals back then. And to address Manticore's question, no, these do not all come from Stan. Often they were originated by Roy Thomas and other writers and editors of the time. Doczilla 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Delete and Merge All the points given above are correct as these endearments played an important role in recognizing these important comicbook people. But question is, do we need a separate endearment article? or couldnt we just merge these endearments to their respective owners? PS: i suggest that they be included in their infoboxes †Bloodpack† 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That may work for the real people under "Psuedonames", but I still believe that is not wholly in line the Biographies guides. The characters though is a non-starter. There is a strong sentiment in the Comics project not to have these types of nicknames in the 'box. — J Greb 05:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I already know why and its probably the same reason it shouldnt have an article about endearments. If it cant be included in infoboxes, then the more of it if it has an article (endearments). As for the real people, yes, lets just include that in their bio †Bloodpack† 06:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to ask for reliable sources at this point to back the claims that these nicknames had anything to do with Marvel's expansion from an eight-title company to a pop culture conglomerate. Otto4711 06:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point... if there is one (likely I would think) then that plus a few examples of the endearments should be rolled into the main article on Marvel Comics. — J Greb 06:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename - I'm not too hot about "endearments", but the article/list is interesting, and I enjoyed skimming through it. - Crockspot 06:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is pretty trivial. It'd make a neat fanpage, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources for the central thesis that use of these nicknames is somehow important to Marvel's success. I don't really see how it can be.--Nydas^(Talk) 08:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - One could also make a DC version of this page (though it'd likely be shorter). Just for Superman we have such names as: The big red S, The big blue boyscout, the man of steel, the man of tomorrow, the last son of krypton, etc. Then Batman: The Dark Knight, The Dark night detective, The caped crusader, etc. (And not forgetting the boy wonder, of course). How about Capt. Marvel as the Big red cheese? Or the Phantom as the ghost who walks? I think that a list of such names is a great way to be able to look them over as a group. And marvel (through Stan Lee) did have a "way with words" when it came to describing the characters. I do agree with the poster above though that I wouldn't mind a rename if we could come up with something better than "endearments". - jc37 09:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Or at Least Tweak we could change the page around to just explain what it is, and add a spot to the superhero box for endearments with a link to this page to explain what it is. It is true this is an important part of Marvel, but the way it is set up, it is trivial.Phoenix741 12:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to List of Marvel Comics epithets. Could use a bit more context, but the use of these sorts of nicknames is a hallmark of Silver Age comic book style. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; incredibly trivial, and certainly both non-encyclopedic and outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Mhking 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteabsolute nonsense. Brian Boru is awesome 16:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete -- really, these nicknames don't need an article of their own: It would be pretty easy to incorporate them into the superhero info box, and mention the creator's names in their relevant articles. Pat Payne 19:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the names in this article are truly important, they should be added to the characters' pages. We don't need a huge list of them all in one place. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List of endearments? Huh? Puh-leeze! Just put them on the individual articles. Realkyhick 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As others have stated: put them in the individual articles, a huge list isn't necessary. RobJ1981 08:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article is innane beyond belief. Extremely trivial. Netkinetic(t/c/@) 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Move. I'll grant that maybe the list doesn't deserve its own article, but it should be incorporated into another article. As for the importance of the endearments in boosting Marvel's popularity...I can't remember the actual title (so this isn't really much of a reference), but there was a coffee-table book on the history of Marvel up to about 1990 (I think it was released in 1991, as it was the 30th anniversary of the beginning of the Silver Age) and the author mentioned at one point about how personalising the Marvel bullpen endeared the staff to readers, and by implication, this increased the company's popularity.The Drainpipe 00:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move The above editor is thinking of Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics, by Les Daniels (Harry N. Abrams, New York, 1991) ISBN 0-8109-3821-9, which does, indeed, write about the catchphrases and endearments being part of "Marvelmania". "Origins of Marvel Comics" by Stan Lee (Simon & Schuster, 1975) ISBN 0-7851-0579-4, and Tales to Astonish: Jack Kirby, Stan Lee and the American Comic Book Revolution by Ronin Ro (Bloomsbury, 2004) ISBN 1-58234-345-4 also talk about it. I'm thinking the article might be more appropriate as a section with Marvel Comics. And given the pop-cultural weight, this information is at least as significant as List of fictional rabbis or List of characters from Alias.... --Tenebrae 02:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  By adding those references, you just voided every "not encyclopedic" comment. I wish we had more such actions in XfD discussions. (In other words, I'm a fan of links and references in XfD discussions : ) - jc37 08:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what else you argue, please don't argue that an article should be kept because some other article exists. Articles stand and fall on their own and the existence of one article has nothing to do with whether another article should exist. As far as the references go, they don't establish the necessity of a separate list article for the endearments themselves. The existence of the endearments may itself be somewhat notable but, again, a listing of every single time that an alliterative word got attached to someone's name in a comic is not. Otto4711 13:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey i am just going to say this idea again cause well I think it will please everyone. Why don't we keep this page to explain what endearments are, and for the characters page we add a section for endearments(with a link to this page) in the superhero box. That will mean this page will be renamed but I think it is the best choice.Phoenix741 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Delete and Merge (though not in that order) While the information is useful, a list page is not. This is all information that belongs on the page for the character, the page for the creator (stan lee), OR possibly as a mention on the Marvel Universe page, wherein one can say 'Certain endearments and nicknames have permeated the Marvel universe. Many created by Stan Lee <list a couple examples> are still in use today.' Boom. Done. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC) -- Edited to clarify that I mean to merge the data into other articles and delete the list page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge - Normally I might say it needs to go, but these can be cited and put into context by being added to the Marvel Comics article as part of a style section. These are part of how Marvel defined itself in the 1960s, along with Stan's Soapbox and the interaction of the Marvel Bullpen with the fans and characters. It's actually a pretty important detail to Marvel Comics; it just needs to be put into context, which can be done. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The present text, title, (I brought its preciousness and vagueness up on the article's discussion page a while back), and treatment of the article is embarrassing, but the topic itself seems valid. The article attempts to describe part of a popular and distinctive literary style. Stan Lee the stylist has been appreciated, loved, imitated, disliked and mocked by writers, editors and readers for decades. If he's important in his sphere as a stylist, then that style should be relevant. In hindsight I regret exerting so little effort to improve some of the article's obvious defects: for example the article's current 'Cultural influence' section contains a sub trivial example. --AC 08:03, 30 March 2007 (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.