Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phantom Blot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Missvain (talk | contribs) at 01:40, 16 May 2021 (Phantom Blot: Closed as redirect (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Mickey Mouse (comic strip)#1930s. Redirect as an alternative to deletion. Missvain (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. All I see in sources - including cited ones like the The Wonderful World of Disney Television: A Complete History - are mentions in passing, generally in plot summaries of more notable shorts and like; I couldn't even find a single sentence, not to mention a paragraph about him anywhere. Even the modern clickbait sites like CBR don't have much: press-release like [1] and tiny WP:INTERVIEW [2]. The best I found is this which compares him to Thanos, but I don't think that's enough. Let's discuss - maybe someone can dig up something else, but please, let's avoid plot summaries and illustrated children books this time. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 19 April 2021 (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 03:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the appropriate section of Mickey Mouse (comic strip). It's covered in some detail there, and could be expanded with coverage from [The Comic Book Book], which devoted almost a whole chapter to the story and its uncredited artist. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Argento Surfer and nominator. I did find this io9 source that ranked him in a list of best genre villain roles in 2017 or something, but other only coverage is mentions in coverage primarily about series and shorts. Disappointing as he's an interesting villain. 👨x🐱 (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I have found two separate sources, although I need them to be looked at to see if they are reliable. This one and this one specifically. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • CBR.com is not reliable, and cartoonresearch.com looks like a self-published blog posting screenshots and text snippets of material it doesn't own. Neither establish notability. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • CBR is considered generally reliable for comic information (not that I would agree with assessment if we re-evaluated consensus today). Argento Surfer (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Argento Surfer, I brought CBR a while ago at RSN, and their lists, at the very least, are considered low quality, see here. As for their more general articles, I'd call them reliable, but many of them have very little non-plot summary - they do vary, however, I've seen some that are quite solid, and some that are pure clickbait that might as well be script generated. I did actually find and link that particular CBR article in my op, and I do think it is the best coverage we have - and it is just not enough, all it has outside plot summary is a few sentences about said comparison. That said, this source is a 'good start' - but if this is all, then we don't have enough to save this. As for the other source, even before looking at the publisher (blog?), it is about the Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot strip which as I mentioned above may be notable on its own - but we should not conflate the two entities (the character and the strip where said character debuted and which includes a mention of the character in the name). "Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot" =/= "Phantom Blot". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If we had a formal discussion on it, I think the case of CBR would be too nuanced to form a clear consensus. The quality since their sale has fallen dramatically, but some columns (like Brian Cronin's stuff) is still solid. Other stuff is accurate but sometimes it's borderline indiscriminate in their effort to hit their "5 times (and 5 times not)" quota. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article can either be expanded with further sources, or it can be reworked and renamed/moved into Mickey Mouse Outwits the Phantom Blot as suggested by other editors. Either way, both outcomes are in the spirit of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There is no established consensus that CBR is unreliable (or reliable). There is however, consensus that its sister site, Screen Rant which operates in a very similar manner or format as CBR following its acquisition by the same parent company in 2016, is "marginally reliable" following a RfC which received substantial participation. In other words Screen Rant (which is more film/TV/video game focused) is reliable enough for entertainment-related topics such as fictional characters, but inappropriate for use in BLP articles, and I imagine a consensus for CBR (which is more comics focused) would be the same in the event that it is also subjected to a RfC. Haleth (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Topic of the character lacks sources necessary to meet WP:GNG. If the comic itself is actually notable, the content in the article on the comic does not amount to much, so I don't think it'd be proper to simply rework the topic as it stands. It's basically a TNT case with maybe justification for a light merge of a paragraph should anyone find sufficient sourcing for the comic to meet GNG. TTN (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ 04:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of media appearances without reliable sources to provide necessary context are worthless in establishing notability. It doesn't matter if the character has appeared in ten thousand pieces of media. If for some reason nobody has critically talked about the character itself, it simply isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. There are plenty of other places on the internet to catalogue such information. TTN (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, I only mentioned that number to give a little context, but the main reason I think the character deserves an article is that he has been discussed in many sources. When I have more free time I plan to locate these sources and improve the article, assuming it won't have been deleted by then. --Newblackwhite (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly thinking of newspaper articles which talk about the character, but as I said it may be a while before I can find the time to collect them and review them one by one. --Newblackwhite (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 8 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.