Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulan Gath

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. Consensus appears clear that, at least, WP:GNG has been met. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kulan Gath

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

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

I prodded this with "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.". The PROD was removed by User:Artw who asked for an AfD. Recent expansion unfortunately is limited to further plot summary/list of appearances in media and the article still has zero discussion of character's reception/significance/analysis/impact etc. In the spirit of PRESERVE, the best I can think of is a short merge and redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K (unless someone can think of a better target). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 November 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} 10:57, 4 November 2021 (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} 10:57, 4 November 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} 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly disagree with the characterization of the sources, which cover the character's cross title history, their use by multiple companies and the impact of their appearance in the Claremont era X-men run. Artw (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you are saying is that the character appeared in several crossovers/different series. That does not help estabilih their notability, the lack of which is evident from the article's structure which has two sections - ficitonal biography (plot summary) and list of apperances in various media. Until a reception or such can be added, this is not encyclopedic-level material. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The covergae esatblishes notability. Your notes on the structure of the article is irrelevant, unless you cna point at a real deletion creiterea you should withdraw. Artw (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or delete~~ An article which contains only plot information and a listing of in-universe appearances is not encyclopedic, according to WP:NPLOT and WP:WAF. What this article should do but doesn't is to discuss things like out-universe significance and impact. In-universe details should appear in no more than a small prose summary for context, and these quite obviously have no bearing on notability, no matter how many secondary sources one finds. Avilich (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the sarticle: "He was later fully integrated into the Marvel Universe, and he became popular for his appearances in X-Men.[2][3] In 2006, he was also used by Dynamite Entertainment when they got a hold of Red Sonja." - which part of that takes place in-universe? Artw (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those describes significant external reception and impact? Avilich (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this as a concession that WP:NPLOT is not actually an issue. Artw (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several online articles with Kulan Garth as their main topic already in the article. So WP:GNG is fullfilled in my view. As these articles focus heavily on plot summary WP:ALLPLOT remains a concern. But as can be seen from the sentence quoted by Artw as well as what I've added as the start of a reception section, there is some complementary non-plot information, so I think this can remain as a separate article. As it is so far not overly much, I am at this point not strongly opposed to a proper merge + redirect, but I think this is not necessary. This non-independent(?) but non-plot summary source could also complement the independent but plot-focussed articles already present. Daranios (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I can see in your source is "The villain of the story is the dreaded Kulan Gath, a sorcerer who considers the She-Devil's time displacement as a game". It's only a snippet, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Much of the reception is someone's opinion of the character's portrayal in the series ("darkest in the world of MV", "most powerful"...). I'm leaning towards a redirect and merge if consensus allows it. Avilich (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: From this source: "...Kulan Gath has been pretty much treated as a very one dimensional villain..." etc. I don't say it's very long, but it's character evaluation. I'll add with that to the reception section when I come around to it. "in the series" refers to KISS or the Screen Rant sources already in the article? Daranios (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

«"one of the most powerful" and the "darkest sorcerer" in the world of Marvel Comics», «Kulan Garth "has not been a major player in the comics over the years"», «"the darkest Sorcerer Supreme" from the Marvel Comics»: all of this concerns the character's in-universe portrayal, rather than real-world impact. This would probably fit well in a character list of some sort, but I'm not seeing individual notability here. Avilich (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I disagree here, I think these are judgements on the character from the viewpoint of the comics reader, not from the viewpoint of his fellow characters within the fictional universe. I don't think they would be found within the comics, i.e. in-universe. That's prominent in "has not been a major player in the comics over the years", which says something about use of the character by the comics publishers, not if or if not he is a major player within the fictional universe. I've now added what I found relevant from the interview with author Amy Chu. Daranios (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if analysis is limited to few adjectives, we are not meeting SIGCOV here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: As usual, I am looking at it from the result point of view: Despite the individual sources having only short commentary, we have collectively ended up with a paragraph of if. (I've done one more bit of expansion.) So together with the introductory section, a publication history (which acutally does not seem to be complete as it is in the article now), and a balanced section of plot summary, we can write more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and more than "a few sentences", fullfilling WP:WHYN as well as WP:NPLOT. That's enough for me. Or, approaching it from the other side, taking the same material together, the length in my view would be such that it would feel somewhat akward as a section only in List of Marvel Comics characters: K. Now I am curiously awaiting what the closer thinks. Daranios (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your expansion is good, but I still think the notability is borderline and I am afraid my reading of GNG suggests that SIGCOV is not optional. That said, the majority of commentators think it is sufficient, so it may remain, in which case I'll congratulate you on saving this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out my vote above, Daranios's expansion is borderline, I have no further opinion. Avilich (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the nominator's rationale that WP:GNG is not met. I feel it is, by articles such as this and this which focus on this character. NemesisAT (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just brief recaps of his fictional biography and appearances, possibly based on our entry or relevant wikias, none has a shred of analysis. If this is the best we can find, I am still not convinced we need a stand-alone entry here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' argument. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios and NemesisAT, who in my opinion have demonstrated that viable sources do exist for this topic in their arguments. Haleth (talk) 12:22, 17 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.