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. At the end of the day, no one showed any notability of this fictional substance. Courcelles 09:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant growth hormone

[edit]

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

Delete - completely non-notable fictional item. Has no real-world significance and no reliable sources that discuss it in any detail, let alone the necessary significant coverage. Has been tagged for reference improvement since September 2007 but that's impossible because references don't exist. Note that there is a real thing called "mutant growth hormone" that has nothing to do with the comic book concept and there are reliable sources for that, but they are not to be confused with sources about the fiction. This should be deleted and redirected to Growth hormone in the hope that someone will write an article about the real thing. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim/indication of out-of-universe notability. -LtNOWIS (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in third party reliable sources. --Anthem 18:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of comic book drugs, which seems to be the exact sort of list it should be in. Mathewignash (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on that list. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect to List of comic book drugs.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on that list and redirecting a real thing to a list of fictional items is inappropriate. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, for the moment there is no mention of the real mutant growth hormone in Wikipedia. So a redirection to the only entry real or fictional seems appropriate. Pages that link to "Mutant growth hormone" contains only comic articles. Harley Hudson, I understand your concern. I propose the same solution that BOZ in addition a section about the real mutant growth hormone should be written in the article Growth hormone.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 200 of the pages that link to MGH do so because the article is included in the X-Men template, which generates a link from each templated page to each templated page regardless of whether MGH appears in the actual text of the article. Another 20 are redirects, user pages or project pages (including this discussion page) and should not be considered. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in a nutshell, you can not say how many pages are linked to this pages due to the X-Men template and there is 0 link for the real growth hormone.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really? You really think that the articles on Stan Lee and Jack Kirby contain links to MGH outside the template? Ridiculous. Take the article out of the template for a day and see how many links remain. Regardless, the point still stands uncontested that there are no independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of this fictional concept. Harley Hudson (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and always 0 link and 0 definition in wikipedia for the real growth hormone. It is not enought notable to have its own article so I vote for a merge and a redirect.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news can help to provide some refs on the fictional one. (just to check some information) --Crazy runner (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, the number of links to or from an article is not relevant to whether the subject matter is notable. A non-notable article linked to ten thousand other articles is still non-notable and a notable subject that has no links to anywhere is still notable. The handful of Google news hits do not support the notability of the concept because they do not offer significant coverage of the concept as required by the general notability guideline. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, I am not saying that we have to keep the article so why are you talking so much about Notability ??? Since when a redirection has to require the notability of an article ? There is an entry in the list of comic book drugs, some articles about comics in wikipedia use this notion, it makes sense to have a redirection to the list. Futhermore some content can be added for example the Banshee in the Marvel ultimate universe. Conclusion for me, it is a merge and a redirection.--Crazy runner (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ per Mathewignash and Crazy runner. BOZ (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seriously. There is a real thing called "mutant growth hormone". Real things should not be redirects to lists of fictional items. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page for growth hormone does not mention mutant growth hormone that I can see. Additionally I don't think it's a valid arguement for deletion that a fictional thing should be deleted because shares a name with a real world thing. If it's true we would simple rename the page Mutant Growth Hormone (Marvel Comics), not delete it. Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting it should be deleted because it shares the name of a real thing. I'm saying it should be deleted because the comics concept has zero sources supporting its real-world notability. Because mutant growth hormone is a real thing readers should not be misled with a redirect to a list for unreal things. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amending my !vote to: Move to Mutant growth hormone (comics) and create redirect or disambiguation page at Mutant growth hormone, and then Merge and redirect as per above. BOZ (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please indicate the independent reliable sources that demonstrate the real world notability of this fictional concept as required by WP:GNG and WP:WAF? Harley Hudson (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you are speacking about WP:GNG and WP:WAF ? BOZ vote for a Merge not a Keep and he proposes the perfect solution to take into account the real and the fictional growth hormone with two redirections.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOZ is suggesting moving this article to a new title. Under either the existing title or the proposed new title there need to be independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the subject. There are no such sources for the fictional hormone, which means that no article should exist under any name, including BOZ's proposed name. No sources means no article. Harley Hudson (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the end, it is not anymore an article, it is a redirection. --Crazy runner (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to have full notability that a stand-alone article would require to merge this into a list. The LIST needs notability, but the individual item on the list needs only a reliable source, even a primary one. Mathewignash (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the list article already has a source so there's no need to merge one from here. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why ??? Where is the rule that tell us to write only one source by notion in a list ? We can improve the definition in the list. --Crazy runner (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist. Not really sure why that statement is such a problem for you. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem for me. The answer of BOZ takes into account that statement. And my question was why did you think "the list article already has a source so there's no need to merge one from here" ? I do not understand I am asking a question about sources, you speack about real and fictional. In my opinion, a section about the real MGH should be written, the MGH direct to it. A merge should be performed and MGH (comics) direct to it. It solves the notability problem and every user can access the information real or fictional.--Crazy runner (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and/or Redirect to List of comic book drugs.

"The. Names. Of. Real. Things. Should. Not. Redirect. To. Things. That. Don't. Exist. Not really sure why that statement is such a problem for you."

Because "Mutant Growth Hormone" is not a term that exists in the real world. "Growth Hormone" is a common term in the real world and sometimes the adjective "mutant" is put in front of it when it is an abnormal GH, so in the literature you will find the phrase "a mutant growth hormone" (hence Google finding the phrase). However, they will never actually refer to the mutated growth hormone as "mutant growth hormone," but will instead use a specific name/term for that specific mutated growth hormone. Spidey104 14:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this should be deleted and then re-created as a redirect to Growth hormone since mutant growth hormones are real things related to real growth hormones. The already-existing Mutant Growth Hormone, which currently redirects to Mutant growth hormone, should be retargeted to the list of comic book drugs. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But since it doesn't exist no one would be looking for it on Wikipedia and having Mutant Growth Hormone or Mutant growth hormone redirect to Growth hormone would be confusing to the people looking for the MGH comic book concept that will be in List of comic book drugs. We could put a link to Growth hormone in the list article similar to Selucia/Seleucia Spidey104 15:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear as to how, when you acknowledge that there exist and there is scientific literature about mutant growth hormones, you can continue to assert that they do not exist. A simple hatnote on the growth hormone article will lead anyone confused between the real thing and the fictional thing to the fictional thing. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term does not exist as something people would search for. "Growth hormones" obviously exist and there are mutated forms of growth hormones, but "mutant growth hormone" is a phrase in the literature and not a term. Having an article about "Mutant growth hormone" would be like having Red automobile be a separate article from Automobile. All mutated growth hormones would have an actual name that people would search for. Spidey104 18:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Growth hormone: Non-notable fictional drug that does not meet the general notability guideline and its article is a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is referenced exclusively with primary sources, nothing to presume that the fictional drug is well known outside of them or to warrant a merge. A quick search engine test on Google shows some mentions in unreliable sources such as fansites and forums. However, the same search in scholarly articles and books shows exclusively the real-world hormone. By adding -marvel to the regular Google search, the results refer to the real-world hormone, roughly 58% of the total results without -marvel. With this in mind, I believe that a redirect to List of comic book drugs would only cause confusion to Wikipedia users since the real-world hormone has much more notability than the fictional drug, which does not show any notability beyond fan-related web sites. Given the notability of the real-world hormone, a redirect to Growth hormone could be a good alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in independent sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jfgslo, I redirect you to my previous comment. Look closer at those results in the Google search and you will realize they are not using "mutant growth hormone" as a term but rather using "a mutant growth hormone" as a phrase. For example those sentences your search is finding all have this same general structure: "ACDr is a mutant growth hormone of the growth hormone ACD." People would look for "Growth hormone" and not "Mutant growth hormone" when looking for the real-world growth hormones, so it makes no sense to have a fictional term redirect to a real-world subject. Spidey104 14:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a section parallel with the reality and some sources. What do you think ? --Crazy runner (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a few sentences out of a blog interview about a story arc that deal with a variant iteration of the fictional concept don't establish the independent notability of this fictional concept itself. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that stuff can be kept when it is Merged and Redirected to List of comic book drugs. Spidey104 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the interview of Comic Book Resources is about the story arc with the Banshee. I took only a few quotes, a paragraph can be write to show the social commentary these comic book drugs give. I have answered the problem of only primary sources and "impossible because references don't exist". It is not the case anymore.--Crazy runner (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are about the story arc. Exactly. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. It's clear that an actual "mutant growth hormone" does not exist, but persons searching for a mutant growth hormone, which is a phrase common to scientific literature, should not be redirected to a list of fictional drugs or substances. No valid, policy-based arguments have been made to assert the individual notability of the fictional concept. If consensus does not support a full deletion, the principle of least harm would suggest any redirect would have to go to the real-world article, as "mutant growth hormone" would be a valid search term to growth hormones in general. — chro • man • cer 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you against a move to Mutant growth hormone (comics), an edit on Mutant growth hormone so it redirects to Growth hormone and a merge of Mutant growth hormone (comics) into List of comic book drugs ? Can we try to have a consensus on this solution ? Real word redirect to real word, fictional word redirect to fictional word and we have not the full deletion. --Crazy runner (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's an extremely complicated solution to a trivial problem. If you would like to add some of the sourced information from the article onto the entry that already exists on List of comic book drugs, I have no problem with that. — chro • man • cer 22:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can not just copy, attribution has to be given to the original author see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I do not see where is the difficulty. There is no need of an administrator to move the page because the page Mutant growth hormone (comics) is not used. And there is a need of a redirection for the articles about comics. The only ones that speack about the Mutant growth hormone for the moment.--Crazy runner (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting you copy. I suggested you add information using the same sources as found on the current article. The overwhelming majority of information on the page is plot summary from primary sources, and badly written to boot. I see no viable need for a redirect at this time. — chro • man • cer 23:30, 9 June 2011 (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.