Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Amalgam Comics characters

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 — a number of votes gave no rationale for their recommendation, so I cannot weight them. However, with that said, most of the "improve" comments showed no demonstration that it could be improved, and were countered by assertions that notable characters were already included elsewhere. --Haemo 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amalgam Comics characters

Delete article that is one massive mess of unsourced, unexplained claims. Yes, DC and Marvel published some comics in which they merged their companies' characters. They did not publish enough issues for this many characters to have made appearances. Given that this article has almost no citations for which issue each appeared in, out of its hundreds of entries, it looks like people are adding fan fiction and bogus material, taking this article beyond the point at which it is useful in any shape, form, or fashion. The Amalgam Comics article already lists the relevant publications, which talk about the characters that matter. Otherwise, these names are not notable and often indistinguishable from hoaxes without a HUGE amount of research. Doczilla 03:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the characters aren't "fan fiction and bogus material" or "hoaxes" as far as I can tell - the reason there are a lot more characters than could fit in the publications are because a lot of the Amalgam output is metafictional - they built a large an elaborate world populated by various characters only some of which got actual comic book outings. That said the article is a mess and needs a lot of work, but that in itself isn't cause for deletion. (Emperor 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete another endless fancruft sprawl. There is an Amalgam Comics page which has much of this info, each book has it's own page where much of this is and should be listed, if you start going through all this it is enless ever character has it's own page, ever team has there own page. Dozens of pages about a barely notable short lived piece of comics history. The main Amalagam page should be rewritten and most of this merged or just gotten rid of. Ridernyc 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher 11:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and improve. Throw out anything that doesn't have a specific issue cite. And for goodness' sake, let's remove the metafictional characters -- they're just throwaway mentions not full characters, and it's way too easy for "clever" wags to make up names and add them to the list.--Tenebrae 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and improve . WikiPedia is not paper. 132.205.99.122 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the important Amalgam characters appear to have their own articles in Category:Amalgam Comics characters and subcats. I would suggest the categorisation of anyone not already in this cat, and then the deletion of this list of the remaining minor characters, due to original research concerns. -- saberwyn 02:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the main amalgam page has most of the real work. I am concerned though, that there are probably 200+ pages with 'amalgam appearances' notes in them. All that stuff should also be hunted down and stripped out as well. If this article goes, finding all of them might take time. (and really.. Bat-X? Artemisty Knight? Did I miss Amalgam Comics two or three or what?) ThuranX 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article that list the numerous combined and recombined characters gets to the essence of this unique imprint. The characters should be cited and sourced, but that does not equate into deletion. I would feel that due to size and length this should remain a sub article of the Amalgam article.
66.109.248.114 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete not worth it to have an article that is never cited by
reliable sources. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It's better then having the info strewn across Wiki. Bluecatcinema 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even though I nominated this thing, I have no problem with the idea of keeping it, but I wasn't going to go through and delete all the unsourced items without input from other editors. Otherwise, the main individual who devoted so much time to adding them might have viewed such broad gutting of his/her work as vandalism. Doczilla 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment- Is this a withdrawl of a nominations? If so, discussion is then closed.

66.109.248.114 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply. No. I said nothing about withdrawing the nomination. I said I'm okay with either possible outcome. My vote hasn't changed. A deletion gets this mess cleaned up easier than a keep. Doczilla 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ridernyc. Doctorfluffy 05:16, 2 November 2007 (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.