Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Features of the Marvel Universe (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)
A somewhat random, unrefrenced and indiscriminate list of "Features of the Marvel Universe." The lead basically says this is a totally indiscriminate list of all things Marvel. Appears to have served as a dumping ground for all things non-notable in the Marvel Universe with items being added the to list as their articles faced deletion. The perfect example of why simply gathering things together is not enough to make a hoard of unencyclopedic things suddenly encyclopedic. Ridernyc (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Could you please explain why this is unencyclopedic? I seems that you are listing things you don't find to be interesting as non-notable after making a half-hearted search for sources and then submitting them for deletion. Many of the articles you say are not notable really are notable but the articles are under-developed but it is likely that expansion with sources can be found. It seems like you are attacking a field of study that you don't care for. 42of8 (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is indiscriminate with no inclusion criteria. It' is also unsourced. The majority of the "features" would not pass the GNG, the majority of them will also never have any information on their real world context or development. While I appreciate your passion for the project I'm not sure you have a very firm grasp on policy and consensus of what the project should be. I would recommend reading WP:NOT. This fails multiple sections of policy. The most important of which is list needs a clear inclusion criteria, this has what amounts to no inclusion criteria. WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." There is no discussion of anything in any of the "Features" listed here, just very brief in-universe descriptions of them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of those policies. It seems like you are looking at this with a very narrow interpretation of the policy that could discourage participation. The policies allow room for pages like this. 42of8 (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is indiscriminate with no inclusion criteria. It' is also unsourced. The majority of the "features" would not pass the GNG, the majority of them will also never have any information on their real world context or development. While I appreciate your passion for the project I'm not sure you have a very firm grasp on policy and consensus of what the project should be. I would recommend reading WP:NOT. This fails multiple sections of policy. The most important of which is list needs a clear inclusion criteria, this has what amounts to no inclusion criteria. WP:INDISCRIMINATE "Summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." There is no discussion of anything in any of the "Features" listed here, just very brief in-universe descriptions of them. Ridernyc (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:22, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks unsalvageable. There's no inclusion criteria, and I doubt that it's verifiable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just rename it List of things in the Marvel Universe or something like that. See how many blue links there are in there? Its a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would still have no inclusion criteria and would function only as an index. A category would do the same job. Just put all the Marvel articles in a Marvel category, and you've got this index. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CLN clearly states you should not destroy a list because you prefer categories. A list article is superior since it gives useful information to help you navigate. The inclusion criteria is rather obvious. If its a notable part of the Marvel Universe then its on the list. Dream Focus 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, but I disagree about the inclusion criteria; it's so vague that superheroes and their superpowers could credibly be added. A better name and more strict inclusion criteria would make me feel better about this article. My first thought was that it could be used as a dumping ground for everything non-notable, but then I thought about why I wanted to keep around a dumping ground of non-notable topics. An index works better, but I'm not convinced that we need one. We've already got a portals and categories, and who decides what's notable enough to be put on this list? If it were verifiable, that would be different. List of cult films, for example, has citations for every film listed. How are people going to decide what is a notable feature of the Marvel Universe? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CLN clearly states you should not destroy a list because you prefer categories. A list article is superior since it gives useful information to help you navigate. The inclusion criteria is rather obvious. If its a notable part of the Marvel Universe then its on the list. Dream Focus 08:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would still have no inclusion criteria and would function only as an index. A category would do the same job. Just put all the Marvel articles in a Marvel category, and you've got this index. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a list of notable entities. It has a fairly obvious inclusion criterion: everything notable featured in Marvel stories. Arguably you could break it up into separate lists, e.g. List of places in the Marvel universe, and it already references some articles like List of Marvel Comics dimensions. But even if you spun out sections into individual list articles, you would probably still want to have an overview listing all of the lists, and some of the sublists might be too short for independent articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a possible merge target. The fact that solid inclusion criteria have yet to be established for this list is not a valid reason for deletion, as this can be discussed on the talk page or elsewhere. Meanwhile, this article does include an independent source, and if the other articles up for deletion were merged into this one, I am sure we could easily meet the GNG. A rename is possible, if that would help focus the article's contents better. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is beyond doubt that the Marvel Universe is notable, and contains many independently notable places and things; a list may also contain things that are not individually notable enough to merit articles. bd2412 T 19:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Items such as the Baxter Building or Infinity Gauntlet have considerable notability and are detailed in reference works such as Marvel: The Characters and Their Universe and The Marvel Comics Encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2013 (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.