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. Opinions are evenly matched between keep, delete and merge Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mogo (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)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge a minimum of info (creators, first appearance, brief description) to List of Green Lanterns. The entry should be five sentences or less. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject, where direct detailed coverage is needed to establish notability, per the WP:GNG. Would accept a redirect if there is some consensus around target. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article lacks real world details needed to fulfill WP:WAF or meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Argento Surfer.  WP:ATD-M is a probably a good alternative in this case to get the appropriate content moved. This is definitely a valid search term and redirect that would likely get created anyway. He meets the lower standard of a WP:LISTN entry, and the suggested list meets LISTN with several listicles out there. Maybe use the intro at this Book Riot piece as a point of reference for merge content. -2pou (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or else Merge with List of Green Lanterns. There is a chapter titled "All for One and One for All: Mogo, the Collective, and Biological Unity" in the book Green Lantern and Philosophy, which counts towards notability. There is also some discussion of Mogo on pages 184-185 of Nerd Ecology: Defending the Earth with Unpopular Culture, although that is a weaker source. I also found some (admittedly just mentions) sources regarding the story "Mogo Doesn't Socialize" by Alan Moore about how it was a brief, throwaway story that actually became very influential for the Green Lantern mythos. Still, even if the page is merged somewhere that first source would be a useful reference to link to. Rhino131 (talk) 11:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the chapter which has his name actually discusses him beyond a plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it does. It's a philosophical analysis of whether a sentient planet can actually be considered "alive", whether it has a soul, and as an example of the philosophy of biology. I rather find it a bunch of mumbo jumbo, to be honest, but that's irrelevant. It's a good source, although like I said it's the only source I found which could be considered significant coverage, hence the weak keep vote. Rhino131 (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: If you have to ask whether a book chapter about this character provides significant coverage, then you've kind of lost sight of what significant coverage means. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Rhino131, the coverage seems wp:sigcov for a fictional character. --Mamushir (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Rhino131. It's a single source, and a lot of it really more about philosophy of biology than it is about the character. But there is something worth preserving here. Archrogue (talk) 19:21, 6 September 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.