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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantium[edit]

Adamantium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Fictional metal which does not meet WP:GNG, since there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article is in violation of WP:BKD and WP:PLOT - it's providing overly detailed in-universe coverage of what is essentially a minor plot element. Claritas § 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Did you look for sources? They exist. [1][2][3][4][5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's essentially trivial coverage - it's either in-universe plot description (as in the unofficial X-men guide) or single sentence mentions. It doesn't directly substantiate the notability of the topic, by discussing it - all that is mentioned in those sources could be summed up in a few sentences on the Wolverine article. Is there any more significant coverage, for example, a few pages in a book or article simply focusing on the fictional metal ? Claritas § 15:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, it is your job to eliminate the possibility that such exist before nominating. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm thinking you didn't look at the sources I provided. This is neither in-universe or trivial. It's about as real world as it gets, and it's all about adamantium. It seems like you want this deleted regardless of what sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I read all of them. This is the entire content of that coverage: Adamantium, a rare (fictional) metal derived from meteor debris, is bonded to his biological skeleton. The metal is somehow liquefied, and then made to combine with his bones (and claws!) to create an almost invulnerable hero - most of this isn't even about Admantium, but about Wolverine. All we've learnt from the source is that it's a "rare fictional metal" and "derived from meteor debris". That's simply a trivial contextual mention, not in-depth coverage. There's no coverage of Admantium in greater depth than the Wikipedia article in any reliable independent source. Claritas § 19:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Marvel Universe While there are a few sources mentioning the topic, on the whole the bulk of sources seem to be fanguides and what not, rather than truly third-party sources. There is enough sourcable information to warrant a serious trim down and merge to the existing universe article, but not enough to consider significant enough coverage for its own article. If kept, article should be given a serious wiping of all the excessive WP:PLOT and WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as among the most no-brainer keeps I've seen. The fact that the nominator is unable to find any references reflects poorly on him, not on the fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it reflects the contrast between what you would like the inclusion criteria to be and what the inclusion criteria are. Claritas § 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I tend to agree with Peregrine and Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is easy to find scholarly works which cover this such as Serials Review. There's perhaps a case for merger with Adamant as this covers the broader fictional usage which is much the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. Many, if not most, articles on subjects from contemporary popular fiction are in a poor state, written primarily from an in-universe perspective, and lacking in third-party commentary. But where, as here, we are dealing with a fictional subject that is decades old, has figured in many different kinds of media as part of a indisputably notable franchise, and has been woven into many separate serial works, there should be some presumption of notability and an effort to address the article's flaws through editing and discussion FIRST rather than through a deletion nomination. There will always remains a question of what level of detail an indisputably notable franchise/serial fiction topic should be documented, and what elements of that franchise/serial work merit standalone articles. But in this context at least, that is ultimately an editorial decision, not a deletion decision, because this element needs to be discussed somewhere, and it is not of relevance to only one article topic. In any event, as shown above, sources have been found and I am confident that more will be found over time. The nom's comments suggest that he did not look, but rather took the article as it appeared and presumed it could not get better. That might be a proper assumption if we were dealing with a one-off supporting character from one TV episode, or something from fan fiction or otherwise self-published, but that's obviously not the case here. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, it's necessary for me to check Google Books/Scholar/News before nominating an article, to check that an article I'm about to nominate isn't indisputably notable. However, the burden falls on you or others proposing keeping this article to find the sources and establish notability. Claritas § 20:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2010 (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.