Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justifiers

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. Sandstein 07:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justifiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This, on the other hand, seems beyond hope, but User:Rtkat3 deprodded this and asked for AFD, so, here we go. PRO was "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." And really, there is nothing else to add except the usual notes about this being plot-only fancruft, and the only non-primary refs is to a mention in passing that this is one of Jack Kirby's inventions. But a very minor and not impactful one, I am afraid... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, major element of DC Comics universe. IQNQ (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Indef blocked user followed a SPI[reply]
  • WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:ITSNOTABLE... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it a major element of the DC Universe? They have no multimedia appearances and only seem to appear occasionally in New Gods-related stuff. According to DC Database, they have only made 16 single-issue appearances since the 1970s. Darkknight2149 06:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is relatively little coverage in reliable, secondary sources on the Justifiers. They are mentioned briefly in a few places in plot summaries, but that is really the extent of it. I suppose it could possibly be Redirected to Glorious Godfrey, as many of the few mentions of them in sources are in regards to being under his command, and that article already does talk about them. Rorshacma (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay. They are alternate foot soldiers of Darkseid outside of the Parademons and played a part in the "Final Crisis" storyline. Plus, @IQNQ: is right about his claim. If the decision ends in merge, it should be under list of New Gods under it's Earth-based allies section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am somehow missing the keep rationale here. WP:KEEPER bad argument above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rtkat3: If you weren't already aware, "Let the page stay, the people who want it kept are right in their claims" is a fairly weak rationale. In fact, votes like this are usually ignored by AfD closers. Darkknight2149 05:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very little reliable coverage indeed. I’m leaning delete unless convinced otherwise. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All primary sources with the exclusion of one non-primary source that I cannot access. Given that there is no real world information cited from the source, it can be assumed to be a trivial mention. This fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A minor group of characters. References are not enough to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to their coverage in reliable, mainstream sources that pass the GNC. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account[reply]
• Delete, this group fails WP:GNG, with no indication of SIGCOV in any reliable sources, and the article in its current state also fails WP:PLOT since it is essentially entirely comprised of in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - My comment above covers it. Darkknight2149 06:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a primary sourced article with no secondary sources to assert WP:NOTABILITY or provide any WP:NOT#PLOT real-world context. There are no sources that can remedy this as the topic seems to have attracted little attention in reliable sources, beyond the fiction itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shooterwalker: Per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:ARTN, and WP:HANDLE, notability is determined by the sheer existence of sources, not by whatever is already in the article. An article being poorly sourced has little weight over whether it's deleted or not. If we deleted every poorly sourced article, a quarter of Wikipedia would vanish overnight (though in this case, the topic genuinely doesn't seem to have any notability). Darkknight2149 04:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you keep replying to my AFD comments to tell me things I already know? When I said "there are no sources that can remedy this", I was very much talking about the "sheer existence of sources" and that this topic "genuinely doesn't seem to have any notability". Next time you disagree with me about the existence of sources, try to WP:AGF and go out and find some. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2020 (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.