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. Although several of the sources provided are just passing mentions or lack the independent editorial oversight needed to meet GNG, some of the recently added ones do provide the kind of in-depth coverage that supports the consensus to Keep.  JGHowes  talk 00:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plastique (comics)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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." It was deprodded by User:Jhenderson777 with the following rationale "Stop prodding AND AFDing so many related content simultaneously. Nobody can improve content with this kind of persistence to delete everything.". Sigh. Let's try to stay civil, shall we? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:48, 19 November 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 08:48, 19 November 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 08:48, 19 November 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 08:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even below, TimothyBlue bizarrely claimed the coverage provided is all "terriary and primary fancruft sources", which is a factually nonsensical claim. You both say that it's all trivial mentions with no critical analysis, even though this is nothing but critical commentary on two different iterations of the character, this is significant coverage (discussing the character's history and how they were adapted for the TV show), this source also goes over the character's history and development, this source discusses the differences in iterations and the character's previous live action appearances, this (the only primary source in the lot) also provides some commentary, this discusses the difference between iterations, and this source has 2-3 whole paragraphs of critical commentary.
If you think the sources are insufficient, you guys (as a generalised group) should start using more honest arguments than the usual "all plot = any plot", "everything is a trivial mention", "reputable third party reliable news sources are actually primary sources or Fancruft™ because I said so", ETC. For example, if you think it's difficult to build an article with the coverage provided, then just say that. If you are simply unfamiliar with the sources cited, there's no shame in not voting or opening an inquiry at WP:RSN either. Darkknight2149 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bustle.com/articles/48229-who-is-plastique-bette-sans-souci-the-flash-is-giving-the-dc-villain-a-heroic-makeover

https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/a586088/the-flash-to-introduce-dc-comics-character-plastique/

https://www.eonline.com/news/564179/the-flash-casting-scoop-it-s-time-to-meet-plastique

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/heres-wholl-be-playing-dc-character-plastique-s1-cws-flash

https://cwtampa.cbslocal.com/2014/08/05/the-flash-plastique-casting-news/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/weather/cws-flash-adds-rakes-kelly-frye-supervillainess-plastique-222500451.html

https://tv.avclub.com/the-flash-plastique-1798181883

https://www.cbr.com/smallville-arrowverse-characters/4/

Darkknight2149 14:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic discussion. This has nothing to do with the current AfD
  • Comment Not sure if this is the best place, but since it was mentioned:
I think staying civil would befit us all. Working in Wikipedia can be so much fun, and a harsh tone can greatly dimish that.
@Piotrus: I think past experiences with comic characters have shown that deletions in this field are practically never uncontroversial. So in my opinion, if any secondary sources can be found in an article or a WP:BEFORE search, a WP:PROD does not seem appropriate. I expect going directly to AfD, if applicable, would save both sides one step of irritation.
AfDs about fictional subjects so far have had results spanning the whole range from keep to delete. So while checking articles about all kinds of fictional subjects with regard to WP:GNG is a valid project, a keep result is always a possibility. So wouldn't it be best for Wikipedia, if interested editors had enough time to check if appropriate secondary sources can be found? Would you perhaps consider slowing down with the deletion nominations (at least within each genre), to allow for that? Daranios (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above. These AFDs usually generate a good amount of discussion, sometimes a lot of discussion, and so even if the article is deleted it is hardly uncontested. Many of these characters nominated have been around for decades and are notable in-universe, so it is not unreasonable to think sources may exist to pass Wikipedia's guidelines, or that users would want the opportunity to look for sources, which often happens in these AFDs. I don't believe PROD is warranted for the majority of these articles. Certainly it sometimes is, but I agree it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to err on the side of AFD, or tag it for lacking sources. Rhino131 (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: I fully support civil discussions, and I don't mind being proven wrong - it's not like I am counting my 'kills' (or 'saves', I do vote keep too :>), and further, a fixed article is a win for everyone. That said, if my BEFORE doesn't find anything substantial, and the article lacks even a rudimentary reception/significance and is all plot, I think a prod is uncontroversial. If someone wants to deprod it, they are welcome to that, but again, my experience and logs shows that a portion of comic prods, maybe half or a third at least, are uncontroversial (nobody disputes them), and I consider that a major saving of everyone's time. (And since I also estimate that out of the other half or so that end up here, delete/redirect (which is the same IMHO) is the outcome for 3/4 or so, I think there is a clear support for cleaning fancruft in this area). And the fact that some articles are saved and I am proven wrong is all good, nobody's perfects, and that's why Wikipedia work. Some people write, some people clean, some people rescue, it's all good, no need to get too frustrated. Just AGF and try to follow best practices - like when deproding, provide some sources or arguments, please (that can save us some of the unnecessary AfDs). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I would suggest that when deciding whether to PROD, take into account the amount of in-universe information and the size of the "in other media" section. I'm not saying that would mean anything for notability, but it Would indicate the character has some prominence in-universe, and therefore is more likely to be recognized by one or more users who would contest the article's deletion. Something like Trigon (comics), which was prodded and quickly deprodded, is a good example. Just the size of the article would tell you deletion would not be uncontroversial, regardless of whether it is ultimately notable. In cases like that (which I'm sure would be a minority), AFD would be a better option. As we all know many Wikipedia users are comic fans, and it just makes sense they would want to try to save articles if they can. Rhino131 (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhino131: Fair enough. Given that more people seem to complain about too many PRODs compared to too many AfDs, I guess it makes some sense to send things here more often directly, and your criteria make some sense. That said, sometimes long fancruft is just that, so I think the length of the in other media is a better indicator than the length of the in-universe sectioon. --04:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: In-universe information can give a good sense of how long a character has existed in the comics and how prominent. If the character only appeared in one story and then disappeared, likely not notable. If the character has existed in the comics for decades, there is likely a reason for that which may lead to sources. But I don't disagree that even for notable characters, the plot information can often be trimmed. Rhino131 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: What do you think about slowing down part (within one genre or at least franchise) to give the "rescuers" enough time to thoroughly look for sources? Daranios (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TTN: I made a mistake in link #4. Thanks for the tip, I have changed it. I hope it works now. Daranios (talk) 08:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, that's all I wanted to do as Reception section at this point. I don't say it's epic in either size or insight, but it's a paragraph and it's not "all plot-summary". And what do we need for an article? There should be more than "half a paragraph" or "a few sentences", and that's the case if we do some more sourcing on the other sections. And taking the publication history/TV appearances with who portrayed the character together with the reception, it's not WP:ALLPLOT.
@TTN: Former #1 is needed to give context to the next sentence; I have also added another rating part in there. #2: How is "the character's portrayal in x is more nuanced than in y", etc. plot-summary and not about the character? #3 Why should a "listicle" not be used? And in general, by no means do I say this article is in perfect shape. But how is deleting the current article (rather than further improving) a gain for Wikipedia? Its existence also does not prevent anyone from improving any parent article. Daranios (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're basically taking extremely minute sentences and giving them vastly more weight than they deserve. These are not articles about the character. They are articles about the shows in which they discuss every trivial addition to each show and give basic context for the non-comic reader, and the context from those is extremely weak. There are certainly comic and pop culture-based articles that do provide actual commentary, but these are not that. This is fluff that looks nice on a surface level when prettied up for the article, but then reveals itself to be hollow when looking at the sources.
  • CBR and Screenrant release some twenty to forty listicles every single day. They have no quality control or vetting. Their level of quality is WatchMojo level trash pumped out for clicks. I think their news articles are generally fine for verification, but their lists are something that should never infect a single article. Top X lists are generally seen as low quality regardless, but those two sites in particular take it to a whole other level of terrible.
  • If the quality of sources is so low that one needs to scrape the ground underneath the bottom of the barrel to find anything even slightly relevant, someone has lost the plot. It's no longer about improving the article. It's just about one-upping the "other side" regardless of the outcome. Then the article just gets nominated again in a few years when it actually has seen no improvement. All that wasted effort could be spent fixing a character list entry or the main article. TTN (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the sources wrong? Is the content incorrectly cited? If not, I don't see why they should not be used. Is the article now worse than before? If it's about improving the parent article, why not either vote merge or put in effort there? Daranios (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They add nothing to the article, so they shouldn't be used. Sources that fail to meet the qualification of significant coverage are irrelevant to the topic. "She has flirted with good on occasion" and "a classic DC villainess" are not commentary. They're minor little quips with zero thought put into them. These little three paragraph news articles are not providing anything significant. You don't need an entire chapter of a book on the character, but you at least need something a few steps above that. Merging is only useful if the article to be merged has something worth merging, like in the case of a relatively minor character only having a single suitable source. This is not at all such a case. TTN (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To give an example, it's like if we had made an article on Minecraft Steve due to the character's inclusion in Super Smash Bros. That was flatly turned down due to being not extensive enough, despite the wealth of news articles covering the addition. I'm sure you could take the same strategy of cherry picking very specific descriptions from those various articles, but it would be trivial coverage. TTN (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just add that CBR-and-like listicles have been declared unreliable for pretty much everything here. Granntted, the discussion was short, but it was hardly hidden, and it was unanimous. No prejudice if anyone wants to restart it at RSN. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's very interesting. To a few details: "She has flirted with good on occasion" is, as I said, just the necessary context for the next sentence. If a character is considered by a secondary source to be a minor character (like Doctor Spectro) or "a classic character" to me is indeed an evaluation, in this case a positive one. In contrast to Steve (Minecraft), opinions on this article differ. Also in contrast to that one, we have the coverage in the different comics encyclopedias in addition to the news articles, and we have the whole publication history/appearances in different media sections, which can be sourced both by books and news articles. In addition to the "listicle" (which does at least a bit more than give "a brief description of why stuff is on the list"), two other news articles come to similar conclusions about the topic. Putting them together, I don't think I have blown that out of proportion.
I would still be interested in how deleting this article is supposed to improve any "parent article", and which one that might be.
Aside from that, not wanting to continue this endlessly, I guess we can agree to disagree. I am waiting on which opinion the closer will form with some anticipation. Daranios (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The more divided the article structure, the more attention is split between them. If you have a character of dubious notability or simply no notability, it's a waste of time and effort trying to pretty up one rotting branch of the tree when the base of the tree is completely neglected. Even in the case someone providing a couple decent sources, it's generally better to include those in a main article (whether the first appearance of the character or a character list) rather than some pointless permastub, but the general trend of these AfDs that lean more towards keep/no consensus always seems to leave a half-baked mess of an article. It's especially weird when they then sit for another five years only to be nominated again and then deleted. I've seen this so many times that it's just bizarre to me. I guess there's not much point in further discussing the sources other than I simply cannot evaluate them as significant coverage in any way. TTN (talk) 16:05, 28 November 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.
More