Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Mondo (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 15:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

King Mondo[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. Nothing in the article describes the character in real world detail, and the only non-primary sources are irrelevant fluff. TTN (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple editors believed that sufficient independent RS existed last time, but Google's API has changed and those results are no longer viewable. TTN, I'll consider withdrawing my keep and swapping for a merge if you can find what they found and help me understand why the last AfD outcome was in error. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are likely what they "found" and those sources are irrelevant fluff stuck in the article to give the air of notability to anyone taking a causal glance. If they found anything of actual substance, it would actually be in the article. TTN (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machine Empire, where the character is already covered. As the current article stands, all but a few of the sources are primary sources, being the episodes themselves. And, if one actually looks into those few third party sources, you'll find that in each of them, the character is mentioned exactly one time each, and only in context of stating "the name of the new villain is..." with no discussion showing any sort of notability. After doing a search for additional sources, I'm not finding any additional third party sources. All I'm really finding is mentions of the character in wikia pages and fan sites, neither of which are reliable third party sources, and nothing seems to extend past simple plot summary. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was the original nominator back when I had a narrow mindset regarding sourcing and verifiability. That's changed quite a bit and seven years I'm inclined to keep and even way back when a completely uninvolved editor at the time managed to find sources. A quick glance at the article should show everyone there was a comic book interview, a Chicago Tribune article regarding the toys, and three other sources wholly independent of the media itself. So any claim that this is just "irrelevant fluff stuck in the article to give the air of notability" is as pessimistic as it is false. This article contains plenty of sources and probably meets Wikipedia's guideline on notability more than most articles on fictional subjects that get nominated for deletion. The fact the last AFD outcome was an almost unanimous keep speaks volumes of how well this article has done in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and on notability, even more so now than even seven years ago. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 14 November 2016 (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.