Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramonda (character)

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 Marvel Comics characters: R. Sandstein 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramonda (character)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Trivial character with no particular coverage. What little attention the character received for the very minor MCU role is not substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some pointless MCU fluff piece with no pertinent commentary and a useless character encyclopedia you've disingenuously cited for the thousandth time. TTN (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The points of the SyFy article include the character's backstory, its publication history, the difference in treatment between the comics and the movie – visually and otherwise. The character encyclopedia comes from a respectable and successful education publisher and has a full page for the character, summarising various aspects of the portrayal. Both sources are professional in every sense of the word. They clearly demonstrate that the subject has been noticed and written about and so WP:GNG is passed. The nominator's denial of them is an amateur and personal opinion – blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:RUBBISH contrary to WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really longwinded way to say that they provide no original commentary whatsoever and are thus useless to the article. Your opinions are blatant contrarianism towards nominators you dislike with zero regards to the actual content of the article, with your provided sources usually being scoffed at by even people who vote to keep the articles. In the case of the Marvel Studios Character Encyclopedia, you are acting like a product clearly marketed towards young children is a meaningful and comprehensive source worth documenting on Wikipedia. The summaries, as can be seen by the preview, are written to be understood by children under ten. You're showing you didn't even look at it, that you've only inserted it here as a means of defending an article for which you have zero investment other than countering someone you don't like. TTN (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly looked at the entry in the Character Encyclopedia and the entry certainly passes WP:SIGCOV. For example, "Her distinctive and intricately designed hats are made with the aid of a 3-D printer." That's a plain fact of interest to all ages. It is a satisfactory source for our purpose and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an "encyclopedia" for eight year olds too young to even have been alive when the franchise launched. That you're still pushing it as a viable source is laughable. You could at least have grabbed a casting article mentioning the 3D printing if that's the best you have, but that's ultimately a trivial mention regardless. TTN (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Educational works are naturally targeted at young people because they do the most learning. Myself, I was happily reading both the Children's Encyclopædia and DC comics when I was eight years old. That was many years ago but my tastes don't seem to have changed much. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and so does not discriminate on grounds of age. The character encyclopedia is written in a reasonably polished and sophisticated style and so is quite valid for this purpose. When it tells us that the subject's hats were made using a 3D printer then this is adequate support for this fact and so there is not a problem. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 12 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramonda_(character)&oldid=1000392881"