Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huntress (comics)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Huntress (comics)

[edit]
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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is one of those blown up disambig pages - "The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics", each of which at the moment has her own page (Paula Brooks, Huntress (Helena Wayne), and Huntress (Helena Bertinelli)). Our current article has no section on reception or such, just a plot summary for each of the three Huntresses, and as such it seems to fail WP:GNG. BEFORE failed to reveal anything that's about Huntresses in general (and goes beyond a plot summary). Granted, neither of three Huntress articles is particularly good, and maybe we should just merge all three of them here - but otherwise, this needs to go (or rather, be converted into a regular WP:DISAMBIG; no need to delete history - could be useful if one we decide to merge the said three articles - so I'd suggest just SOFTDELETE by converting this one to disambig without the need to use any admin-level tools). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Robin would be plausibly kept because it has a reception section which makes a plausible case for notability. This aticle has no such thing. Plot summaries are on par with original research, and so don't have the same need for preserving/merging as information derived from secondary sources. Also, enough with that double standard by which deletionists are required to go through pointless procedural exercises while creators are allowed to operate without any editorial oversight when conceiving these wikia-tier articles. Avilich (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich: Question on a detail: Why do you think "Plot summaries are on par with original research"? Original research should be avoided, plot summaries are a wanted part of Wikipedia (albeit not sufficient to sustain an article on their own, which may be a problem here, but I think a fixable one). Daranios (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a basic point: I think there is a good reason why Wikpedia's guidelines set a higher hurdle for deletion than creation of articles, if you will a double standard. If we were to require the creation of "good" articles from the get-go, rather than allowing for incremental improvement, we would in my opinion have very, very much fewer articles. And in the end also very much fewer good articles. Wikipedia is a very successful project, but it is a project of volunteers. So we are here to determine if this article can be improved. And, if it can, it should be improved, by whoever wants to. Maybe by whoever is most dissatisfied with the current state? Daranios (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I compare plot details to OR because the sourcing standards for those are lower, with editors being allowed to extract information from the primary source directly. I of course understand that Wikipedia is the result of incremental efforts, but this only means that an article doesn't need to be 100% ready at conception, not that encyclopedic viability should be ignored at that moment. The guideline you yourself cite quite explicitly says, "Strictly avoid creating pages consisting only of a plot summary". To expect the nominator to drag himself through other places before coming here, while the creator couldn't even take the time to find some third-party coverage, is unreasonably disproportionate by any standard; besides, articles routinely get improved through AfD. Avilich (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich: Good point, I was not aware of that exact phrasing. But three buts: This article does currently not only have plot summary, but also publication information/history + info on the creators. Then, as I've described, I think there should be no decision about this article without or before looking at its three subtopics. And lastly, yes "articles routinely get improved through AfD", but that's exactly the opposite of how it should be. If there are surmountable problems, they should be flagged (I know that that does not always help, but well, it's a volunteer project), or better, fixed by the one detecting it (or being annoyed by it).
As for the other point, sure, sourcing standards for plot summary may be lower, but it's not "worthless" information. It is a wanted part of an article about a fictional topic, while WP:OR is unwanted in general. Daranios (talk) 11:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being. I am not quite sure how best to go about that one. In my view the only way a deletion as an outcome would make sense were if taking all three comic book characters together would still fail WP:GNG. So to discuss this, we would need to check for secondary sources for the collective topic as well as all three individual ones. Piotrus, if I understand correctly, when you did the WP:BEFORE search, you only had the overall topic in mind?
If all three characters individually would turn out to be notable, then the idea to transform this into a short disambiguation page would make sense to me. But even in that case, I think there is material here that is not present in the articles about the individual characters which should be saved by merging there. On the other hand, if any or all of the three were not individually notable, but there was enough treatment in secondary sources for a combined article, then merges of the non-notable individual ones here would make sense, again keeping this article.
Now I have done just a quick view, but Google Scholar hits are plentiful. I would be very surprised if WP:GNG would fail taking all Huntresses together. Very interesting looks this freely available work, which, being French, may not plop up in every search. It has quite a bit material about the latter two characters carrying the title of Huntress, also comparing both and, arguably, some parts about the title itself when not clearly distinguishing between the two characters. This French PhD thesis also talks about those two Huntresses, and at least mentions Paula Brooks, too. Daranios (talk) 15:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drat, now I am not sure what kind of publication "Les femmes à Gotham City" is, if it is a master thesis after all or something else. Can anyone clarify? Anyway, that does not affect the rest of my argumentation. Daranios (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As that concern was raised, just collecting other sources which have more than passing mentions: War, Politics and Superheroes: Ethics and Propaganda in Comics and Film, Female Action Heroes. Daranios (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The two English books, sorry to say, look very much like passing mentions to me. Regarding the French thesis, I'd ask you to provide quotations and preferably translations here showing parts which meet SIGCOV. As for their reliability, PhD theses are usually considered reliable, Masters - less so. I'd say that IF the PhD thesis contains SIGCOV about all three, it would count as a good source, but I would be less willing to accept the Masters. Anyway, yes, we need sources that cover all three huntresses if we want to argue that an article about all three is independently notable. Since we still don't have a single reliably sourced sentence or quotation that discusses the significance/importance of all three, I stand by my initial analysis - this needs to become a disambig. And if some of the characters are not-notable, they need a redirect to some list, not a merge/split/forking(!) into a SYNTH disambig that fails GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Assuming for the moment that the overarching topic "Huntress as a comics character" when excluding all references to the individual incarnations does not have enough coverage to fullfill WP:GNG, then I still think starting here is doing it backwards. Assuming any of the three characters would fail WP:GNG on their own (or, well, at least in case two of them were), I see no reason why this would not be a correct merge target for them. I am looking at Reasons for merger: "3. Short text: If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who themselves are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity". Being the same context and pseudonym applied to different characters in the same medium, acutally within the same brand, seems to be at least as good a reason to cover these in one article as being related. So to reach a conclusion about this article, one could either look at the three individual articles first, if one was so inclined. Or take on the big job of looking at all four related topics now. Daranios (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, I don't follow. If a subarticle is not notabe, merging it back here won't help anyone. Arguing that we need this expanded disambig because a subarticle is not notable is just weird logic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: Why is that weird, given that you yourself have initally argued "and maybe we should just merge all three of them here". I am just taking this a step further and say we should not decide here, before the question is decided if merging any or all of the others here is the way to go. Daranios (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios Well, if only one of them is notable, the best place to merge would be the article about "Huntress (the notable one)" which could have a section about "other characters named such". If none are notable, they all should be redirected to some lists. If 2+ are notable, they can have their own articles, and whichever is non notable, gets the redirect treatment. The overview article only makes sense if it passes GNG itself. Which so far I am not seeing sufficient sources for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: If only one were notable, making the other two necessary to merge, I'd wonder if "Huntress (comics)" would not be the better title for the collected information in the end as compared to "Huntress (specific character)". If 2 were notable, I'd still suggest to merge the 3rd one here. Something like that you seem to have considered yourself in the nomination. And then we probably disagree on a basic point: You think the more or less abstract concept of Huntress (comics) would need to fullfill WP:GNG to have this article at all. I say, the three individual characters are subtopics of "Huntress (comics)". If none of them were notable individually, but we would have enough treatment in secondary sources to write an article that can fullfill WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, I think having such an article is just fine and in keeping with the guidelines. Anyway, whatever the case, I can just repeat that I think this article should not first be up for deletion and then be decided if it has some merits in some combination with the other articles. Daranios (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll reiterate the WP:SYNTH guideline which I think explicitly tells us creating our own topic by arbitrarily merging others, when such a new topic does not pass stand-alone GNG, is a bad idea... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus: "The Huntress is the name of several fictional characters appearing in comic books published by DC Comics" - this seems neither an arbitrary grouping nor a controversial statement to me. If you wanted, this statement could also easily be referenced, by "Des superhéroïnes à Gotham City" or All Star Companion (though not on the same page); and when looking into this I also found The Superhero Book, which on p. 186/187 has a dedicated article to "The Huntress", which explicitly talks about and links all three characters and has some commentary. Daranios (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Starting to look into Des superhéroïnes à Gotham City: une étude de la (re)définition des rôles genrés dans l’univers de Batman PhD: p. 62: Golden Age Huntress: Like many villainesses of the time falls under the "Dating Catwoman" cliché of being in a romantic relation to the hero she fights. p. 111: Editor justified the creation of the character of Helena Wayne by a wish to bring more diversity into the comic books. Also more diversity for the ALL-STAR JSA group, and give Power Girl (the only female in the groups at the time) someone to contrast with and befriend. p. 133: Between 1985 and 1989, she is the only Batman universe side character to attain the title superheroine, if I understand correctly. And sometimes gets to be the protagonist. p 135: Helena Bertinelli is an ambiguous female character since, unlike the other members of the Bat-Family, she doesn't hesitate to kill. Together they are at the forefront of a very marked increase in the number of female characters in the catalog of the publisher DC Comics. p. 145: Huntress is a typical character of "Bad Girl Art". She is a woman of action, has an ambiguous morality and is scantily (? translator says "short") clothed. Daranios (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep low quality timewaster AfD. Artw (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify Fails WP:NPLOT. Having hundreds of Google hits is nice and all but once one starts discounting restatements of plot information or passing/listing mentions the end result is a much smaller pool of usable sources. If this article were a draft, a submission would be declined, so this shouldn't be on the mainspace. If notability is a concern and if these sources are actually adequate, then whoever wants to work on it can do so in the draft or userspace. Avilich (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Huntress DAB page which contains links to the 3 DC characters and the Marvel character. All the information at this article is already contained in the subarticles, so nothing would be lost to readers. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an interesting AFD because there are many examples in comics of different characters using the same name (such as Robin mentioned above). So a lot of articles will potentially be affected by whatever is decided here. I think common practice so far has been to have an article for the parent name (such as Robin (comics) or Flash (comics)) and within that article entries for characters who have used that name. Some entries have links for articles, others without articles just have a couple paragraphs of description on the main page. But if the parent article were to be deleted, what would happen to the information on the characters without their own article? It would have to be redirected somewhere else, probably a giant list of characters. I personally would want to have an article on "The Huntress" with information on the three specific characters, and I think that is more helpful to readers as well. If any of the individual articles don't pass GNG, they would be merged here, rather than the giant list of DC Comics characters or something like that. So I say keep this article (and any other similar articles) for navigational reasons and as a potential merge/redirect target. I don't see it as an issue that this article exists. Rhino131 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Robin and Flash are famous enough I am sure there are sources for them to have stand-alone overviews, like the "history of different Robins/Flashes". The Huntress is a much more minor character and as long as nobody can show such in-depth, independent coverage exists, she doesn't need a central article. Again - I'd be happy to reconsider if overview sources about all Huntresses are found. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't like the precedent deleting this would set. Articles have often been merged/redirected to articles like this one as an alternative to giant lists. If this goes, the lists are the only option. But yes, that's more of a personal preference on my part. Rhino131 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't worry about precedent here. Robin and Flash are significant that books have been written about the legacy of the name (see this or this). The outcome here might influence decisions on things like Quasar (comics), but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. This would serve as a set index for any characters that were named Huntress. Plus, @Haleth:, @Daranios:, @Artw:, and @Rhino131: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:57, 23 November 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huntress_(comics)&oldid=1057229150"