Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Dare (comics)

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. RL0919 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double Dare (comics)[edit]

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

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to notability (characters that appear in multiple versions of a mainstream media publication familiar to thousands and possibly millions of people in the real world as verified in reliable published sources) These characters have appearances spanning 20 years in both print and video mediums. The nominator may be ignorant of or not care about these, but so what? Her opinion is largely irrelevant, because there is no actual reason for deleting this article that does anything for the good of humanity or even this project. Coverage of these notable characters here is clearly relevant to the numerous people who edited this article since 2006 and the probably larger number of readers who have benefited from the information contained within it. Deleting it serves no practical purpose other than to appease some self-appointed judge with no actual edits ever made to building any articles on this site. --199.123.13.2 (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC) blocked sock Reyk _YO! 13:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and therefor also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These longstanding policies show that we cannot allow articles without reliable secondary sources to stay. This article lacks any, and I cannot find any elsewhere. Term is generic, and therefor a redirect would not be worthwhile. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft defended by a WP:SPI sock. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Minor fictional characters without sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. The only sources being used for the article are primary, and the usual searches turns up nothing substantial. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 25 November 2019 (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.