Susan Banner was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC) with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Marvel Comics characters: B. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
Brynocki was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 6 October 2019 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into List of Marvel Comics characters: B. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.IndexesWikipedia:WikiProject IndexesTemplate:WikiProject IndexesIndexes
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This was at AfD, but was closed as no consensus. However, when I looked at the debate again, there seems to be pretty strong consensus that a merge is appropriate. The article still shows no out-of-universe notability. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits20:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support the merge - the only third party content is to show that the character exists in a particular book and so the article fails WP:GNG for a stand alone article for which Merge is a legitimate option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article was good enough to appear as a DYK on the main page. Black Kite closed the AfD as "no consensus", not "pretty strong consensus to merge". Deletion Review would seem the appropriate forum for your concern, rather than this back-door method. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The proposal is unacceptable for the following reasons:
The title Breeze Barton is the best and most natural title for the topic per WP:PRECISION.
The proposed target seems to be arbitrary and indiscriminate contrary to WP:LISTN.
The proposed target is inappropriate as the character was primarily in Timely Comics, not Marvel
The proposed target is too large at 70K, contrary to WP:SIZE, and so should be split not merged per WP:SPLIT.
The character can be classified in several ways - Timely, Marvel, Zombies, SHIELD, Golden Age, &c. We might have lists of such characters but, when characters appear on multiple lists, it is best to have a separate entry for the character to avoid repetition and redundancy. This is efficient data management - see normalisation.
The proposal would be disruptive to both editors and readers by mixing up the topic with huge amounts of unrelated material
The page seems fine as it is - if it works, don't fix it.
1)PRECISION is about choices to name existing articles that meet WP:GNG and is entirely irrel for subjects that do not
2) the target is clearly a parent article and not at all arbitrary and therefore not contrary to LISTN
4) That the current content is too bloated and full of excessive inuniverse trivia is not valid point. even actually sourced-to-reliable-third-party content of UNDUE weight is routinely trimmed from articles and no reason non third party sourced content cannot be trimmed.
6) there are plenty of methods and navigation tools that will address any potential confusion to readers or editors.
8) if Warden thinks that applying wikipedia policies for stand alone articles to articles is "vexatious" then he probably should look somewhere other than Wikipedia to edit.
Oppose merge Warden makes some very valid points. And there is never anything gained by eliminating content some might find of interest to read, and having just a minor token bit "merged" to another article. DreamFocus23:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very true. Warden's point #8 is particularly true. The crusade to rid the encyclopedia of this article began with an administrator (who's supposed to know better) placing a PROD-tag on an article that had appeared as a DYK on the Main Page. That he ran straight to AfD when the tag was removed was to be expected, but he actually had the effrontery to complain that the tag (that never had any business being placed) was removed without good reason. The AfD was closed as "no consensus"; as I noted above, the next step is an attempt to overrule the closing admin by quietly sidestepping the DRV process and falsely claiming there was a strong consensus to merge. Battleground, harass, and civil, indeed. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stating one's opinion that a proposal seems to run contrary to numerous guidelines does not even remotely "violate" WP:AGF. I'm not sure the same can be said about suggesting an editor with whom you disagree should "edit elsewhere". Joefromrandb (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per excellent arguments put up by Joefromrandb and Warden. The article creator, whoever he or she is, must be lauded for creating such a spectacular article on a 1940s-era superhero. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose specific merge proposal but Support general principle of a merge. As I said in the AfD, my preference was to merge with Daring Mystery Comics. Warden makes a legitimate point above about article size, but the article I just mentioned is only 5K, so a merge would not greatly impact reading time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Warden's arguments fail to address the fact that the topic does not meet WP:N and WP:WAF. Size, scope, and his personal, inclusionistic opinions are all irrelevant compared to that issue, and they can be easily handled without keeping the article just because one page is "too large" (this could easily be cut down to 30kb) and whatever else. Without something to show that the character has had some sort of impact on the real world, it does not need an article. Daring Mystery Comics may be a better target. TTN (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean in regard to the current guidelines and policies relating to the management of fiction, yes. He is giving several arguments based personally on feelings that completely ignore the key issues. The current consensus is that articles on fictional topics need to meet certain criteria, and objections like SIZE without considering that this can be trimmed, the idea that the character is too complex to summarize on a list, and the idea that "it's fine" are all moot if the character does not establish notability through a real world perspective. I don't really consider myself a deletionist in this case, as that would be more akin to trying to delete an established article despite it passing WP:N and other such guidelines simply because it is a fictional topic. TTN (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's horseshit. He laid out an eight-point rationale detailing why a merge is inappropriate. Not one of those points says: "I have personal inclusionist opinions, therefore it should not be merged". If you disagree with the rationale, that's fine. Attempting to refute it point by point is also fine. Speculating about his personal opinions is not. You're refuting an argument that doesn't exist. I'm not one to holler "straw man" very often, but it doesn't get much more blatant than that. Also, you are debating the editor, rather than the idea, breeching WP:CIVIL, and -quite humorously- validating his eighth point. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're getting a bit too offended for no real reason. He has made it quite clear in past discussions that he is an inclusionist, and he bases most of his arguments in such discussions as if all articles on fictional topics deserve to stay regardless of polices and guidelines. Pointing that out with an adjective is hardly uncivil. You've mentioned BATTLEGROUND, but you're the one up in arms about this and acting like this is some conspiracy, even though merge discussions after an AfD are perfectly valid and hardly a "back-door method." That's also a weird accusation in itself given that the nominator took the time alert all those involved in the AfD, rather than just those who voted merge or delete. TTN (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you I'm not even a little bit offended. That he has made it clear that he is an inclusionist is irrelevant. His arguments either hold water or they don't. I feel they do. You feel they don't. That's fine, and attempting to refute arguments with which you disagree is also fine. Dismissing arguments because you feel they're based on inclusionism (straw man) or because he is a known inclusionist (ad hominem) is not fine, as it potentially poisons the discussion. Ditto for "acting like this is some kind of conspiracy", which I am not. While I do indeed have my personal speculations as to Fram's reasoning for PRODing the article, I have kept them to myself, and simply stated the facts. This all began with an administrator of 8 years placing a PROD-tag on an article that had appeared on the main page as a DYK. While certainly not immune from deletion, "PROD" was obviously not appropriate. I never said this discussion wasn't "valid", and I haven't accused the initiator of this discussion of any kind of duplicity, although I disagree with his methods. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning more on merge. It's all good info to keep. But the article doesn't seem to fit the criteria on WP:GNG. He wasn't too recurring even in the Golden Age. Also he was a bit of a minor killed off character when he did return post golden age. So notability first and foremost is the basic key for why an article should be done on him. The DYK hook is the only reason why I would be reluctant. I would have preferred a real world perspective DYK hook myself.Jhenderson77700:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
So I am curious on what is the consensus here? Is there one? Honestly I am on the merging side because I couldn’t find any reliable sources online or on books on him to help prove WP:GNG. Also everything’s in-universe. I would boldly merge it but I am hesitant on that. Jhenderson77705:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A minor character who appeared in a handful of issues. Article is 7/8 plot summary. Nothing here shows notability. No significant improvement since 2011. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Minor character. Only appeared in limited issues and then killed off in almost his only Modern appearance. I feel like the info is still good but it’s better as a section on here. Jhenderson77701:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I took a look at all the articles listed here and these are the articles that stood out as either/or not notable or too minor/obscure to have as an article. I am here to merge request all of them unless notability is proven.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
