Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego the Living Planet

Add links
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.

Ego the Living Planet[edit]

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 20:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I'll sign off as endorsing admin. Hiding T 23:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ego the Living Planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I consider myself reasonably familiar with comic books. This charatacter did not make an impression on me, and apparently not on the real world either, since there are no third-party sources on the page. Article is written entirely in-universe, and if you look at the history, attempts to make it less so were purged. My reliable sources tag was removed, with edit summary "removed third party tag as comics are sources". In summary: non-notable, no reliable sources. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'll be coming up with an out-of-universe section as soon as I can, but I've been bogged down with doing the same on other Marvel AFD'ed articles lately plus plenty of real life stuff. Character has had a number of appearances over its 40+ year history, and has appeared in various Marvel cartoon shows. BOZ (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So he exists. How does that make him notable? Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've started the Publication History section... it'll require time to complete, and I need concentration, so I'll have to finish it later. BOZ (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - although victim to a minimalistic page editiing, this character has been a notable comics villain for the past 40 years appearing in other medium such a video games and television. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • I still don't see any outside sources to attest to that. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looks like a poster who is simply irked and is being petty. Once again, the comic are the main sources, and the fact that someone has not heard of a character, or that they "did not make an impression on me" is not grounds for deletion. Asgardian (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assume good faith. In my nomination, I said "no sources". Removing tags and claiming that the comics books themselves are third party sources makes me think that certain people don't know whhat notability means, The wave of "Keeeps" here, all of which rely on primary sources or personal belief that the character is important, make me wonder. Blast Ulna (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comics by established publishers such as Marvel are obviously reliable sources for their own content. In-universe writing is a flaw, but it's a matter for editing, not for deletion. The comments above already deal with the notability issue. Postdlf (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, primary sources do not count as reliable sources. We have no outside sources for notability. He never had a comic of his own. Blast Ulna (talk)
      • I doubt that most of our featured articles cite reliable sources that claim the topics are "notable". --Pixelface (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps not using the word "notable". However, if you look at the Featured Article Captain Marvel (DC Comics), the very first reference does say, "Captain Marvel instantly popular, to the point that it was outselling every comic on the stands for several years". Blast Ulna (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also a Featured Article, Superman's first source says "In the early twenty-first century, Superman remains one of the most popular comic book characters of all time..." So have I erased your doubt? Blast Ulna (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you can say Captain Marvel and Superman are "popular." Saying Captain Marvel is "notable" is a claim not supported by the source, and that sort of thing violates the policy on original research and verifiability. --Pixelface (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Seriously? I'm violating policy? Blast Ulna (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I think the notability guideline is violating policy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, until WP:N is amended or deleted, lets stick to arguing within the rules--this article had no third party sources at all when I nominated it. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no requirement that a subject must be the most notable within its particular genre, or even particular world of fiction, in order to merit an article, featured or not. See, e.g., spoo.
          • And again, primary sources are reliable sources for factual descriptions of their own content. Why wouldn't they be? I suspect you're not understanding that whether a source is primary or secondary is completely relative to the assertion for which you are relying upon it. A New York Times article is a secondary source for, say, a quote from John McCain but a primary source for what the article itself says "The New York Times reported that..." You don't need yet another source in order to attribute a statement from the article to that article. Otherwise you'd just need yet another source in order to attribute that attribution. Postdlf (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages.

Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series?

Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support.

Keep, keep, keep.

Asgardian (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • All that is needed is a couple of outside sources on the character, that's all. If he has been around for so many years, surely there are some sources? Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Outside of what, anything published by Marvel Comics? I honestly can understand you wanting such a thing, but there is no consensus for limiting articles on individual elements of notable fictional universes in this manner. It's really a matter of how detailed should Wikipedia's coverage of a notable thing be. In many cases, such as where a character has only appeared in one individual book, film, video game, etc, there will usually be a consensus to merge into lists ("minor sith characters," whatever). But here, where a character has appeared in multiple publications and media adaptations over decades... Plus where would you merge it? Postdlf (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Character appears in many different titles over many years, basically what everyone else has said. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately, these are not votes. Blast Ulna (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they're not, and I doubt your constant replying to every single comment here will impress the closing admin. JuJube (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to closer I'll abstain from posting my views here since I'm bringing this up, but I should point out the Comics WikiProject was notified of this discussion as a "speedy keep" issue by an IP here, so vote-stacking will be an obvious issue and should be duly noted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please elaborate? I don't see why it's an "obvious issue." Postdlf (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Canvassing, "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process". For example, users who would not normally comment on the article votestack. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is about votes, Blast. The character has a well developed in-universe history with ties to many notable Marvel characters and a constant presence over most of Marvel's publishing history. Consensus seems to be that the character is notable, and at least one editor has volunteered to add better sources, although there is already a variety of noted issues in the article. joshschr (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't like it's the "WikiProject for Keeping Comics." Those interested in comics as a subject aren't predisposed to keep an article just because it's about a comics-related subject. One might as well complain about the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions; does that list and others like it just function to vote-stack? True "canvassing" of the kind that should be frowned upon would be to selectively e-mail or leave talk page messages just for certain like-minded users, obviously a far cry from a public posting on a subject-specific project page, no matter how hopeful that posting was of a particular result. Further, to even raise the concern after seeing that the comments above have substantively responded to the arguments (not, "keep, I love comix!! LOL!") is rather puzzling. Postdlf (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the members of WikiProject Comics share the same brain. One need only to look to the many, many debates about content (or edit wars, for that matter) between project members to know that this is true. Yes, the notification should have been phrased in a more neutral manner, but it clearly falls under the category of friendly notice. Canvassing would be soliciting specific people to support one's cause. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Noteable, heck DC comic book's living planet (Mogo) has it's own article. P.S. For the sake of record, Magneto has had more then one comic book series. Lots42 (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: while most people agree that the character is important because of its longevity and so on, this (like some other similar recent AFD's) has the big problem that that is not sufficient. If the character is not discussed in independent (i.e. not by Marvel), reliable sources, then it fails WP:N and it fails our basic aim to be a tertiary source, not a secondary source. What we need are in depth sources. The character gets mentioned in one article[1] (snippet view [2]). It gets mentioned in a few books, but nothing beyond a passing mention. All in all, this looks to be one of those things that has been around for years but hasn't gotten any serious attention outside fan circles. Should we have an article on it? No, not really. There are over 1,200 articles in the Category:Marvel Comics supervillains alone, I don't believe all of them are notable, and there is no evidence from reliable sources that this one is. Fram (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As extremely goddam STRONG KEEP as is possible !!! I cannot BELIEVE this AFD. Ego, the Living Planet, is one of the most mind-blowing creations of Jack Kirby at the height of his powers. Fram says Ego's not notable? This is a villain who has survived for over 40 years. Even after Kirby's withdrawal, Ego has been taken up by such other notable writers and cartoonists as Stan Lee,Gerry Conway,John Buscema,Rich Buckler,John Byrne,Steve Ditko,Marshall Rogers, Steve Englehart and on and on!

If a recurring character were to be published over 40 years in The New Yorker or The Saturday Evening Post, written by star authors, would that not de facto confer notability? Marvel Comics is the equivalent.

Note that the nominator has also frivolously nominated The Uncanny X-Men for deletion in the past. "I consider myself reasonably familiar with comic books" [...] Hah! If you are, then this is bad faith nomination. If you aren't, then you have no business commenting on comics at all.

Deletionism is being roundly abused. Rhinoracer (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? I NEVER nominated the Uncanny X-Men for deletion. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a recurring character was published for forty years in The New Yorker, and gets no reviews, in depth studies, ... in reliable independent sources, then it is not notable. Of course, the chance of this happening is very small, but then again, The New Yorker doesn't have thousands of recurring characters, contrary to the Marvel Universe. If there are no articles in e.g. TCJ or whatever reliable source you prefer about "celebrating 10 / 20 / 30 / 40 years of Ego" or anything remotely similar, if not one book or article not published by Marvel hasn't spent even a page about the history of Ego or the differences between Ego and other "living planets" in science fiction or whatever angle you can imagine, then all we have is a truckload of fans thinking that longevity means notability, and not a single good source agreeing with this. Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; for many reasons. First, the character has appeared in multiple media, including the Fantastic Four cartoon. Second, the character has had a song by an third-party band (that is, one with no affiiliation with Marvel) named after him. That leaves WIkipedia with a high likelihood that someone will see the name of the song and wonder what the heck an "Ego, the Living Planet" is. It would be nice if Wikipedia was capable of serving its intended purpose. Third, the character HAS had his own comic: the 2001 issue Maximum Security: Dangerous Planet. The "planet" in question is Ego, the Living Planet. Further, the remainder of the Maximum Security miniseries features him as the primary villain. Any review of Maximum Security, therefore, is also a discussion of Ego. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, I knew adding a Publication History section was a good idea.  :) I found a note on that "Oni Press Color Special" - anyone know what that is, or if it would count as a secondary source? BOZ (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Third party sources exist and can be added. In-universe content can be deleted and replaced with real-world context. (Attempts to improve the article being reverted in the past aren't a valid deletion reason). The reliable sources tag can be re-added and the article can be fixed. Nominating a subject for deletion because your edits were reverted is a poor reason for an AfD. Rray (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep dammit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.82.159 (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has comics book sources. Gman124 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's a part of Marvel history. Beef up the article, but don't delete. --Noclevername (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the definition of notability is changing I see. I guess Ego have alternate versions and appearing in the Silver Surfer cartoon makes him obscure. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- for all the reasons noted above. As far as I'm concerned, it's the "secundary sources needed" approach that needs serious revision. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ego_the_Living_Planet&oldid=1142191694"