Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flycatcher (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 merge to List of Fables characters#Flycatcher. Daniel (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flycatcher (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to the most trivial of mentions. Seems like a waste of time AfD that never have been deprodded, unless I'm searching incorrectly. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really still not look at the sources you post? How hard is it to take three seconds to read that and realize it's a panel by panel analysis of a page featuring the character and not actual commentary on the character? TTN (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work is written by a Professor in Comparative Literature, was published by the University of Nebraska Press and I consider it quite satisfactory for our purpose. Per the fable of the miller, his son and the donkey, this may not please everyone but so it goes. My !vote stands, being based on both policy and evidence. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per usual, you dodge the actual point with an absolute nonsense rebuttal. Please explain how several pages dissecting the framing of comic panels is relevant to an article on the character. Being mentioned in the context of the dissection does not itself inherently equate to coverage on the character. TTN (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The analysis says things like "The following panels take the reader into the fictional mind of Flycatcher ... We see the facial expression of Flycatcher and construct his intuitive response." These descriptions and insights are clearly WP:SIGCOV. Q.E.D. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, you dodge the question. Please explain how the analysis of the panels is relevant to the character rather than simply using the character as a vehicle to convey their point on framing a character's emotional state and inner thoughts through drawings and panel layout. TTN (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2021 (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.