Hiroyuki Tsuchida – Most of the endorse comments focus on the fact that this content isn't going to survive AFD in its present format but there is plenty of precedent for "crime" rather than "perpetrator" articles to suggest that this isn't completely kaput although its perfectly obvious that this won't survive as it is. This is why G4 is so narrow because we may well find another use for some of the content and we now have a couple of sources to look at. The place for that discussion is AFD so away we go... – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hiroyuki Tsuchida (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I made a good article for a start about a notorious case of murder in Japan that drew attention to the Otaku World and toward anime. I don't understand why it was speedy deleted. Maybe too many English spelling mistakes? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] I speedy deleted it because it was nominated under WP:CSD#G4, because it had already been the subject of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroyuki Tsuchida. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The cached version shows no secondary source content. Other websites show the basic information; it is all primary source fact-type information without commentary, without which it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It fails WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP. There is no corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] However, given that people are interested in discussing, and someone says that the second content is dissimilar, send it to AfD. CSD#G4 is for when there is nothing new to say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I temporarily undeleted it. I figured someone would want that. Wily D 09:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. As per the previous AfD, this is a WP:BIO1E piece. The sole reference source provided in the reposted version is actually a dead link, and I am unable to find the original news article even using the Wayback Machine. Maybe Kotjap can provide a working link to the reference source he based the article on, as I would like to see hard evidence for the "shock waves" and "moral panic" this incident supposedly caused. Googling for "Hiroyuki Tsuchida baseball bat" doesn't turn up any reliable news articles - only chatter on game forums, so the social impact of this one-off murder appears minimal and highly transient. --DAJF (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Having now looked at the restored original version of the article (I didn't realize that that was also now visible when I wrote the comment above), I agree that this is not a simple repost of a deleted article, and a new AfD is probably the way to go. I'm still curious about where the reference link in the article came from, though, as the fact that it was dead on arrival when the article was created is what immediately made me think it must be a reposted article. --DAJF (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] An Anime News Network article from December 2003^[1] lists that dead link as its source. I searched using the bare URL and found an online forum post quoting it in English. Since the link is dead, I have no idea if the post was quoting an official translation, a machine translation, ANN's summary, or another source. Note that Tsuchida was not convicted until February 2004, nearly three months after the original article. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment. You treat me as a liar. I live in Japan. When Tsuchida killed his mother there was a moral panic against otakus and hikikomoris. And it clearly sent shock waves across the nation. Kotjap (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Randomly and inappropriately using adjectives like "clearly" isn't very convincing. I lived in Japan during this "moral panic" and seems to have been a fairly invisible one. --Calton \| Talk 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment WP:CSD#G4 appears to be slowing down, not speeding up, deletions. The original article was correctly deleted. The new article would highly likely be deleted at a future AFD (but no one person should be deciding that). But the two articles are "not substantially identical" so the new one should be excluded from G4 deletion. In the current spate of G4-related DRV discussions people are (understandably) discussing the encyclopedic merits of replacement articles, or saying the CSD criteria are not to be regarded strictly, or, and this puzzles me most of all, people have radically different understanding of what "not substantially identical" means. I'm beginning to wonder whether (1) should these cases should be batted to AFD with minimal discussion here, or (2) DRV should discuss directly whether the article should be deleted and not consider the correctness of the G4 speedy deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Just to respond to Thincat's point (2): DRV isn't AfD round 2. We're here to supervise the process, not to second guess what the AfD or speedying sysop should already have decided. It follows that with a G4 speedy, our only role is to decide whether the deleted version was "substantially identical". If it was then we overturn and if not we endorse. The reason we have trouble with this is because different people have different understandings of how to apply "substantially identical" in practice. Personally I take the view that G4 is for bad-faith recreations where a user is trying to perform an end-run around consensus. Good faith recreations, which this one was, belong at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] List at AfD I strongly suspect we shouldn't have this article under this name (as a BLP it's probably a "one-event") but there may be a case for the event (murder, media reaction and trial). That said, it will take a native speaker to find sources. I don't see this as a G4 for the reasons S Marshall lists. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Agree with Hobit that an article on the even and reaction to it is more likely to be acceptable than a biography. However, as Kotjap (talk · contribs) lives in Japan, speaks Japanese, is new to the English Wikipedia, and as the event was in Japan, all involved were Japanese, and all sources appear to be Japanese, why doesn’t he attempt to write an article on the Japanese Wikipedia? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse on the grounds that this doesn't stand a chance at AFD, looks like a textbook BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Relist G4 usually does speed up deletions, because most G4s are indeed unaltered or almost unaltered re-creations, and are not challenged. When one is challenged in apparent good faith, the obvious thing is simply to send it to AfD again; I have always done that if there's a reasonable challenge to by G4s, or to any of my speedies for that matter. What takes time is sending them here as an intermediate step. What is needed to change is the resistance of admins to challenges to their speedy rulings: it's not an exact science, and the simplest way is to let the community decide. For this particular article, the question of whether it can be handled properly to as to meet the BLP requirements has been reasonably raised, and needs to be discussed at AfD. This isn't the place for it. "Not having a chance at afd " is only reasonable here if it is undisputed. That's not the case. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, as the recreation is quite similar to the AfD'd version. There are differences in organization, but the details, such as the Neon Genesis Evangelion quotation and why he started with a family member, are the same. I think it is because the article is built on the same root sources (and the English sources have few details). The Anime News Network sources given as external links in the AfD'd version ([2], [3] I fixed the outdated links) refer to Japanese news stories. The December 2003 story cites the dead link in the recreated version as its source. This is still a BLP1E with terrible sourcing. The "moral panic" could be a notable topic if there are adequate sources. Tsuchida should be mentioned in that article, not vice versa, which would tend towards a WP:Coatrack. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - A better approach to the topic would have been an article entitled something like Murder of X, where X is the mother's name. However, the English sources[4][5] do not appear to list the mother's name. Also, the English language sources are not detailed enough for an article on the topic, making it difficult to get over the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" hurdle if only English language sources are used. I think a new article on this topic also would have to be source from Japanese language sources to get over G4 and be named something like Murder of X to address the one event issues. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] The articles at the end of the Murderpedia page match the corresponding ANN articles word for word. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist. As I commented above, the requirements for G4 speedy deletion are not met. Another matter DRV can legitimately consider is whether different speedy criteria apply but none have been mentioned and I do not see any. The article can appropriately be considered at AFD. Thincat (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. This was a good-faith creation, nearly three years after the deletion discussion, written by a different author, citing a different source, organised in a different manner. In no way was this "substantially identical" and was not a valid use of G4. Whether it would be deleted at AfD or not is irrelevant as it doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per the others above noting that G4 was not appropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment I am near to get a Japanese source. Please be patient, don't delete it please, hold on please. Kotjap (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Kotjap was given two Japanese sources by User:御門桜, which he used to rewrite the article. I ran them through Google Translate to get a basic idea. Both are newspaper articles rehosted elsewhere. They are dated July 5, 2003, less than a month after the murder. I see nothing about later information such as Tsuchida's motive or an Evangelion connection, but they are used as refs anyway. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Endorse speedy deletion Perfectly straightforward, wikilawyering about G4 notwithstanding. Besides, "because I said so" isn't evidence of anything, and if it ws such an important case, why is there no Japanese Wikipedia article on this supposedly important Japanese topic? --Calton \| Talk 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Thryduulf and Jclemens; since G4 requirements were not met, this should have been a community process decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hiroyuki Tsuchida – Most of the endorse comments focus on the fact that this content isn't going to survive AFD in its present format but there is plenty of precedent for "crime" rather than "perpetrator" articles to suggest that this isn't completely kaput although its perfectly obvious that this won't survive as it is. This is why G4 is so narrow because we may well find another use for some of the content and we now have a couple of sources to look at. The place for that discussion is AFD so away we go... – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I made a good article for a start about a notorious case of murder in Japan that drew attention to the Otaku World and toward anime. I don't understand why it was speedy deleted. Maybe too many English spelling mistakes? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted it because it was nominated under WP:CSD#G4, because it had already been the subject of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroyuki Tsuchida. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The cached version shows no secondary source content. Other websites show the basic information; it is all primary source fact-type information without commentary, without which it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It fails WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP. There is no corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, given that people are interested in discussing, and someone says that the second content is dissimilar, send it to AfD. CSD#G4 is for when there is nothing new to say. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I temporarily undeleted it. I figured someone would want that. Wily D 09:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As per the previous AfD, this is a WP:BIO1E piece. The sole reference source provided in the reposted version is actually a dead link, and I am unable to find the original news article even using the Wayback Machine. Maybe Kotjap can provide a working link to the reference source he based the article on, as I would like to see hard evidence for the "shock waves" and "moral panic" this incident supposedly caused. Googling for "Hiroyuki Tsuchida baseball bat" doesn't turn up any reliable news articles - only chatter on game forums, so the social impact of this one-off murder appears minimal and highly transient. --DAJF (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having now looked at the restored original version of the article (I didn't realize that that was also now visible when I wrote the comment above), I agree that this is not a simple repost of a deleted article, and a new AfD is probably the way to go. I'm still curious about where the reference link in the article came from, though, as the fact that it was dead on arrival when the article was created is what immediately made me think it must be a reposted article. --DAJF (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Anime News Network article from December 2003^[1] lists that dead link as its source. I searched using the bare URL and found an online forum post quoting it in English. Since the link is dead, I have no idea if the post was quoting an official translation, a machine translation, ANN's summary, or another source. Note that Tsuchida was not convicted until February 2004, nearly three months after the original article. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You treat me as a liar. I live in Japan. When Tsuchida killed his mother there was a moral panic against otakus and hikikomoris. And it clearly sent shock waves across the nation. Kotjap (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly and inappropriately using adjectives like "clearly" isn't very convincing. I lived in Japan during this "moral panic" and seems to have been a fairly invisible one. --Calton | Talk 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CSD#G4 appears to be slowing down, not speeding up, deletions. The original article was correctly deleted. The new article would highly likely be deleted at a future AFD (but no one person should be deciding that). But the two articles are "not substantially identical" so the new one should be excluded from G4 deletion. In the current spate of G4-related DRV discussions people are (understandably) discussing the encyclopedic merits of replacement articles, or saying the CSD criteria are not to be regarded strictly, or, and this puzzles me most of all, people have radically different understanding of what "not substantially identical" means. I'm beginning to wonder whether (1) should these cases should be batted to AFD with minimal discussion here, or (2) DRV should discuss directly whether the article should be deleted and not consider the correctness of the G4 speedy deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond to Thincat's point (2): DRV isn't AfD round 2. We're here to supervise the process, not to second guess what the AfD or speedying sysop should already have decided. It follows that with a G4 speedy, our only role is to decide whether the deleted version was "substantially identical". If it was then we overturn and if not we endorse. The reason we have trouble with this is because different people have different understandings of how to apply "substantially identical" in practice. Personally I take the view that G4 is for bad-faith recreations where a user is trying to perform an end-run around consensus. Good faith recreations, which this one was, belong at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List at AfD I strongly suspect we shouldn't have this article under this name (as a BLP it's probably a "one-event") but there may be a case for the event (murder, media reaction and trial). That said, it will take a native speaker to find sources. I don't see this as a G4 for the reasons S Marshall lists. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hobit that an article on the even and reaction to it is more likely to be acceptable than a biography. However, as Kotjap (talk · contribs) lives in Japan, speaks Japanese, is new to the English Wikipedia, and as the event was in Japan, all involved were Japanese, and all sources appear to be Japanese, why doesn’t he attempt to write an article on the Japanese Wikipedia? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse on the grounds that this doesn't stand a chance at AFD, looks like a textbook BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relist G4 usually does speed up deletions, because most G4s are indeed unaltered or almost unaltered re-creations, and are not challenged. When one is challenged in apparent good faith, the obvious thing is simply to send it to AfD again; I have always done that if there's a reasonable challenge to by G4s, or to any of my speedies for that matter. What takes time is sending them here as an intermediate step. What is needed to change is the resistance of admins to challenges to their speedy rulings: it's not an exact science, and the simplest way is to let the community decide. For this particular article, the question of whether it can be handled properly to as to meet the BLP requirements has been reasonably raised, and needs to be discussed at AfD. This isn't the place for it. "Not having a chance at afd " is only reasonable here if it is undisputed. That's not the case. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, as the recreation is quite similar to the AfD'd version. There are differences in organization, but the details, such as the Neon Genesis Evangelion quotation and why he started with a family member, are the same. I think it is because the article is built on the same root sources (and the English sources have few details). The Anime News Network sources given as external links in the AfD'd version ([2], [3] I fixed the outdated links) refer to Japanese news stories. The December 2003 story cites the dead link in the recreated version as its source. This is still a BLP1E with terrible sourcing. The "moral panic" could be a notable topic if there are adequate sources. Tsuchida should be mentioned in that article, not vice versa, which would tend towards a WP:Coatrack. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A better approach to the topic would have been an article entitled something like Murder of X, where X is the mother's name. However, the English sources[4][5] do not appear to list the mother's name. Also, the English language sources are not detailed enough for an article on the topic, making it difficult to get over the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" hurdle if only English language sources are used. I think a new article on this topic also would have to be source from Japanese language sources to get over G4 and be named something like Murder of X to address the one event issues. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles at the end of the Murderpedia page match the corresponding ANN articles word for word. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. As I commented above, the requirements for G4 speedy deletion are not met. Another matter DRV can legitimately consider is whether different speedy criteria apply but none have been mentioned and I do not see any. The article can appropriately be considered at AFD. Thincat (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. This was a good-faith creation, nearly three years after the deletion discussion, written by a different author, citing a different source, organised in a different manner. In no way was this "substantially identical" and was not a valid use of G4. Whether it would be deleted at AfD or not is irrelevant as it doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per the others above noting that G4 was not appropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am near to get a Japanese source. Please be patient, don't delete it please, hold on please. Kotjap (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kotjap was given two Japanese sources by User:御門桜, which he used to rewrite the article. I ran them through Google Translate to get a basic idea. Both are newspaper articles rehosted elsewhere. They are dated July 5, 2003, less than a month after the murder. I see nothing about later information such as Tsuchida's motive or an Evangelion connection, but they are used as refs anyway. Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion Perfectly straightforward, wikilawyering about G4 notwithstanding. Besides, "because I said so" isn't evidence of anything, and if it ws such an important case, why is there no Japanese Wikipedia article on this supposedly important Japanese topic? --Calton | Talk 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Thryduulf and Jclemens; since G4 requirements were not met, this should have been a community process decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wildebeest – Deletion endorsed The nominator would be well advised to read our inclusion standard. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wildebeest (comics) (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I once requested that the page for Wildebeest would be undeleted. There were different Wildebeests in DC Comics and that Baby Wildebeest was a popular character. We also had information there for the Wildebeest Society (who were recurring enemies of the Teen Titans), the New Wildebeests, and the Cybernetic Wildebeest. Even though I was a recurring contributer to it's page, I still should've been informed of the page's nomination for deletion. How can we have it's page there in the event that a version of Wildebeest makes an appearance in upcoming issues for The New 52? Rtkat3 (talk) 11:33, January 21 2013 (UTC) It looks like it was deleted due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Are there any new ones that weren't considered in the AFD? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Although Baby Wildebeest's had references, I haven't been able to find the references for the other Wildebeests until now. If the Wildebeest page is officially restored, the other Wildebeest sections should be referenced when I get to it. Any objections? Rtkat3 (talk) 10:58, January 22 2013 (UTC) Could you show an example of in-depth coverage in a reliable secondary source for this subject? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] What do you mean by that? More references? An external link? Rtkat3 (talk) 1:55, January 22 2013 (UTC) Are there any reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth? See WP:RS for what qualifies as a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - A better approach would have been to write an article entitled something like List of DC Comics Wildebeest characters. Another problem with the original article is that it used the DC comics themselves as the sources (e.g., Adventure Comics #483, "SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF STEEL" #20 (February 1993), Titans Sell-Out Special #1 (1992), and Blackest Night: Titans #3 (December 2009)). The sources for the Wikipedia article should be independent - not connected to - the DC comics themselves. See WP:GNG. Independent sources help show a viable Wikipedia reader interest in the topic and help create a NPOV article. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] What do you suggest we do since there are a lot of Wildebeests in DC Comics? Rtkat3 (talk) 11:58, January 23 2013 (UTC) An easy way to determine what to post in Wikipedia and what to keep out is use reliable sources independent of the topic. Merely being in DC Comics is not enough to add such Wildebeests information in a Wikipedia article because material in DC Comics is not independent of DC Comics. If the only place you find information on a particular Wildebeest is in DC Comics, then that information should not be added to Wikipedia. Wildebeests DC Comics is mentioned in some books that are independent of DC Comics,[6] so that information would be fine to add to Wikipedia. Such a list also would need to meet at least one list purpose. Another thing you would want to consider is whether there is some sort of connection between Wildebeests in DC Comics. You can start with a draft article in your user space and return to deletion review to ask whether such a draft article is good enough for article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Before I go with the Sandbox idea, I'd like to point out that the person who started the Wildebeest page had also redirected Wildebeest Society and Baby Wildebeest to that page. Just letting you know that. Yet this link is only thing I found on the link provided which lists information on Wildebeest's action figure from the Teen Titans cartoon. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:52, January 24 2013 (UTC) Endorse deletion - I'm not convinced that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. The original article was sourced only to the comics themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Let the page stay. Even though the references and external links are associated with the character, I haven't found any other outside sources yet. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:18, January 26 2013 (UTC) Endorse Deletion if we can't find any thing beyond the absolute trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources we shouldn't have an article. It maybe a mention of them can occur in some other article, but it doesn't meet the standard for a standalone article. To answer "How can we have it's page there in the event that a version of Wildebeest makes an appearance in upcoming issues for The New 52?" - by applying the same standard, if it appearsin the New 52, and reliable sources take some note of it, then the GNG is possibly met, then we have an article. If no reliable sources take any sort of notice, then why should we? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Where can we find reliable sources outside of the issue references, the DC Comics Wiki, and Comic Vine? Rtkat3 (talk) 3:05, January 27 2013 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wildebeest – Deletion endorsed The nominator would be well advised to read our inclusion standard. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I once requested that the page for Wildebeest would be undeleted. There were different Wildebeests in DC Comics and that Baby Wildebeest was a popular character. We also had information there for the Wildebeest Society (who were recurring enemies of the Teen Titans), the New Wildebeests, and the Cybernetic Wildebeest. Even though I was a recurring contributer to it's page, I still should've been informed of the page's nomination for deletion. How can we have it's page there in the event that a version of Wildebeest makes an appearance in upcoming issues for The New 52? Rtkat3 (talk) 11:33, January 21 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it was deleted due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Are there any new ones that weren't considered in the AFD? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although Baby Wildebeest's had references, I haven't been able to find the references for the other Wildebeests until now. If the Wildebeest page is officially restored, the other Wildebeest sections should be referenced when I get to it. Any objections? Rtkat3 (talk) 10:58, January 22 2013 (UTC)
- Could you show an example of in-depth coverage in a reliable secondary source for this subject? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean by that? More references? An external link? Rtkat3 (talk) 1:55, January 22 2013 (UTC)
    - Are there any reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth? See WP:RS for what qualifies as a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A better approach would have been to write an article entitled something like List of DC Comics Wildebeest characters. Another problem with the original article is that it used the DC comics themselves as the sources (e.g., Adventure Comics #483, "SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF STEEL" #20 (February 1993), Titans Sell-Out Special #1 (1992), and Blackest Night: Titans #3 (December 2009)). The sources for the Wikipedia article should be independent - not connected to - the DC comics themselves. See WP:GNG. Independent sources help show a viable Wikipedia reader interest in the topic and help create a NPOV article. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest we do since there are a lot of Wildebeests in DC Comics? Rtkat3 (talk) 11:58, January 23 2013 (UTC)
  - An easy way to determine what to post in Wikipedia and what to keep out is use reliable sources independent of the topic. Merely being in DC Comics is not enough to add such Wildebeests information in a Wikipedia article because material in DC Comics is not independent of DC Comics. If the only place you find information on a particular Wildebeest is in DC Comics, then that information should not be added to Wikipedia. Wildebeests DC Comics is mentioned in some books that are independent of DC Comics,[6] so that information would be fine to add to Wikipedia. Such a list also would need to meet at least one list purpose. Another thing you would want to consider is whether there is some sort of connection between Wildebeests in DC Comics. You can start with a draft article in your user space and return to deletion review to ask whether such a draft article is good enough for article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before I go with the Sandbox idea, I'd like to point out that the person who started the Wildebeest page had also redirected Wildebeest Society and Baby Wildebeest to that page. Just letting you know that. Yet this link is only thing I found on the link provided which lists information on Wildebeest's action figure from the Teen Titans cartoon. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:52, January 24 2013 (UTC)
Endorse deletion - I'm not convinced that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. The original article was sourced only to the comics themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let the page stay. Even though the references and external links are associated with the character, I haven't found any other outside sources yet. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:18, January 26 2013 (UTC)
Endorse Deletion if we can't find any thing beyond the absolute trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources we shouldn't have an article. It maybe a mention of them can occur in some other article, but it doesn't meet the standard for a standalone article. To answer "How can we have it's page there in the event that a version of Wildebeest makes an appearance in upcoming issues for The New 52?" - by applying the same standard, if it appearsin the New 52, and reliable sources take some note of it, then the GNG is possibly met, then we have an article. If no reliable sources take any sort of notice, then why should we? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where can we find reliable sources outside of the issue references, the DC Comics Wiki, and Comic Vine? Rtkat3 (talk) 3:05, January 27 2013 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.