Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punch and Jewelee

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 Captain Atom#Rogues gallery. Anything worth merging elsewhere is still available from the history. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Punch and Jewelee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "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." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with the usual copy-paste edit summary that did not challenge the PROD rationale. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 17 December 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} 09:13, 17 December 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} 09:13, 17 December 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} 09:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero real world notability, fails WP:GNG, delete as per WP:PLOT Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Watchmen comics have been outstanding successful, inspiring numerous editions and dramatisations as a major movie, TV series, &c. A recent sequel is Doomsday Clock which continues the tradition of basing its characters on those that first appeared in Charlton Comics, so Rorschach is based on The Question who was in turn based on Mr. A – other characters of Steve Ditko, who seems to be focus of the current spree. So, the major new Watchmen characters of Marionette and Mime are based on – guess who – Punch and Jewelee. Now the current version says nothing about this because the bulk of it was written in 2006, long before Doomsday Clock was written. But this is all documented in reasonable sources such as CBR and Doomsday Clock's New Villains Change Watchmen Mythology. So, there's clearly more to do here and so our policy WP:ATD applies: "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."

And notice that the nomination says nothing about this; it's just a cut/paste, drive-by nomination with no particulars, specifics or details about this topic. This demonstrates that WP:BEFORE was not followed and so the nomination is lacking. Proposed deletion of such topics is disruptive because it's only for "uncontroversial deletion" and "must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected".

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note, I would like to point out that I nominated Mr. A to be merged with the development section of Question (character) last year. There was a unanimous consensus for it to be kept, with several voters stating that the topic was independently notable and has significant coverage. If you disagree with it, the next step in the dispute resolution process is to re-nominate it at the deletion review noticeboard. Darkknight2149 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The above are trivial mentions that fail to meet WP:GNG. The rest is just an appeal to WP:INHERITED. This topic does not presently show itself to have received actual significant coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay as they are one of Captain Atom's enemies. Also, I support the mentionings made by @Andrew Davidson:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Suppose I considered myself a Captain Atom enemy. Do I get a page too? Let's be serious here. A passing mention here and there does not an encyclopedic article make. Or anything along these lines. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge with Doomsday Clock (comics). The very little coverage (which is only a few sources that I could find) that exists for these characters mainly discusses their connection to Watchmen and nothing else. And this is coming from a source check I performed myself. I have seen no evidence of independent notability so far. Darkknight2149 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the best option here is Merge to Doomsday Clock. While I disagree that the sources Andrew D provided are simply trivial, I don't believe they are significant enough to base an article on. The notion that Doomsday Clock kept in the tradition of reinventing Charlton characters is a good one, and these sources could be well-used on the Doomsday Clock page. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)}

• Delete Per nom. Nothing to merge, really. Fails GNG entirely and completely._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge into their paragraph in the rogue's gallery section of the Captain Atom article, which can be expanded slightly. The newer sources brought up by Andrew can be incorporated into Doomsday Clock (comics). Haleth (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer. Please consider SOFTDELETE (redirecting) rather than outright deletion if possible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two participants have voted keep, so I don't believe that falls within the definition of criteria for WP:SOFTDELETE where no one is opposing deletion (a slim majority of participants oppose deletion in some form in fact), and this is no longer a case of minimal participation after two relistings. I thought your rationale for a PROD or nomination of the topic for AfD is to seek for outright deletion in the first place, whereas a merge proposal at the talk page would have been a much more appropriate avenue if you had simply sought for it to be redirected. Haleth (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am still not convinced there is anything valuable to merge here, but I believe redirecting to a now-identified target, while preserving the longer article in edit history, is a better outcome than hiding the edit history and red linking this. That's all. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is not WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS that addresses the subject directly and indepth to support a stand alone article. Mentions are not SIGCOV and WP:PLOT is WWIN.   // Timothy :: talk  12:18, 11 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.