Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homo mermanus
- 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 redirect to
Hidden races (Marvel Comics) which seems to have consensus as a target. HIstory is preserved should consensus emerge for a re-target, which is a matter of editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 20:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
]
Homo mermanus
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Sources are pretty much only primary; there's no indication this meets Wikipedia notability criteria and is a better fit for FANDOM. I think the most likely result of this AfD would be a redirect to Namor or something of that nature. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom, sourcing is very weak and PRIMARY, and searching looks no better. Maybe best target is Atlantis (Marvel Comics) which discusses the subject in plenty of detail already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Redirect - There is not a single non-primary source being used in this article, and the entire article is almost completely comprised of in-universe plot information. Searches did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources that goes beyond mentions in plot summaries. While Atlantis (Marvel Comics) would be the logical choice for a redirect, I would like to point out that article currently has similar sourcing and notability issues as this one. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Keep or merge with either ]
- Keep and improve. As editors have pointed out, it needs some secondary sources, but there must be at least a few that could verify the basics, such as first appearances and at least an outline of the basic in-universe mythology. I don't buy the notion that a franchise this old could have eluded all secondary sources; surely some reviews of Black Panther: Wakanda Forever would mention the cinematic versions of the species, its home, and its chief characteristics, although you might need specialist material about Marvel Comics to verify the print versions. This might need to be researched at a library. But I think it can be done. Note that not every fact needs to be in a secondary source: names and basic descriptions of characters or plot lines can come from primary sources. Clearly a lot of work went into this, and while it's not written in a very encyclopedic manner, that's fixable. It's too big to merge into another article without huge cuts. So let's give subject-matter specialist editors a chance to work on it, now that we've identified some of the major issues with the article. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Disregarding for a moment that this argument is entirely a ]
- That's an essay, not a policy—in this case there's a near certainty of reliable sources that the nominator doesn't even claim to have looked for. The work in which this material exists is notable, and the subject here is probably too large to be conveniently folded into another topic. If you're familiar with AfD policy, then you know that articles aren't supposed to be deleted because nobody has added the necessary sources, but because such sources don't exist or can't reasonably be located. A quick Google search that doesn't turn them up doesn't really satisfy that expectation. If the topic is mentioned in secondary sources, then it needs to be explained why that coverage is claimed not to be "significant". The sources don't need to cover the topic in the same depth as this article, and you don't need one source that knits them all together. Works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, even if you think the literary form (comic books) is unworthy of encyclopedic treatment. This article, or at least the first couple of sections, is poorly written, but salvageable, and it is certainly not a "plot summary"; WP:NOTPLOT does not apply. We should treat this article as though it were deserving of a concerted effort at improvement, because it clearly can be improved; we shouldn't dismiss it because we don't find the subject serious enough. P Aculeius (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone here is of the mind that comics aren't a "serious" form of media. The main issue here is that citing only comic books is a case of all primary sources (Aka, no significant coverage outside of the fictional universe in question is displayed). As for your sourcing argument, if you want that to be valid, then link to this argument sources that exist out there discussing the Homo mermanus in depth. If coverage exists and can be proven and verified as being significant, then yes, notability is proven. However, you can't really exclaim "Sources exist" and then tell someone to go find them. If you believe the topic is notable, prove to the argument that the sources exist. Show sources that prove the topic is notable. Anyone can say sources exist; it's a different matter entirely proving that the sources do, in fact, exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's an essay, not a policy—in this case there's a near certainty of reliable sources that the nominator doesn't even claim to have looked for. The work in which this material exists is notable, and the subject here is probably too large to be conveniently folded into another topic. If you're familiar with AfD policy, then you know that articles aren't supposed to be deleted because nobody has added the necessary sources, but because such sources don't exist or can't reasonably be located. A quick Google search that doesn't turn them up doesn't really satisfy that expectation. If the topic is mentioned in secondary sources, then it needs to be explained why that coverage is claimed not to be "significant". The sources don't need to cover the topic in the same depth as this article, and you don't need one source that knits them all together. Works of literature are valid sources for their own contents, even if you think the literary form (comic books) is unworthy of encyclopedic treatment. This article, or at least the first couple of sections, is poorly written, but salvageable, and it is certainly not a "plot summary"; WP:NOTPLOT does not apply. We should treat this article as though it were deserving of a concerted effort at improvement, because it clearly can be improved; we shouldn't dismiss it because we don't find the subject serious enough. P Aculeius (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect and merge relevant information to Hidden races (Marvel Comics). While I can't speak for the notability of that page, it's probably the best redirect target, given how messy this whole page and its potential redirects are. Since most of these characters are one-offs, not much is being lost by dumping the character list, but some of the relevant species info is worthwhile to preserve for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)]
- Redirect there is very little reliable secondary coverage here. Some of it could be selectively merged, but it does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)]
- Redirect to Hidden races (Marvel Comics). The entry there might be slightly expanded but most of this is only sourced to primary sources (i.e. the comics themselves) and not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)]
- 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.