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. Modussiccandi (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantium[edit]

Adamantium (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)

12 years since last AfD, our standards have risen, but this article remains, well, a fan-written plot summary, and rather short at that. Outside of said plot summary, we have an 100% WP:ORish section on etymology, and that's it. WP:BEFORE found a tongue-in-cheek paragraph in this academic source, and a bunch of short plot summaries and mentions in passing. This should certainly redirect somewhere but my BEFORE does not suggest that the topic of super strong materials in fiction is obviously notable. As such, Unobtainium#Similar_terms or Wolverine (character) is probably best. PS. Suprisngly enough (at least for me), vibranium is very much notable (see Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis, which I just added). I'd be very happy if we could save the adamantium article in a similar fashion, as I already noted, my BEFORE didn't help here (unlike for vibranium). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG. Time, CinemaBlend, Inverse, Live Science, SyFy, Nerdist, some here, here, here Articles being in bad shape isn't reason for deletion, never has never will be.★Trekker (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not impressed. We have a plot summary (a lot of those, actually, including one in the form of interview with some artist), a bunch of fan speculations, and some reports of companies using this term in marketing. Plus articles where people are mentioning adamantium in passing like [1]. In other words, the usual assortment of google hits. Where is SIGCOV? Where is any significance shown (like what I found for the vibranium)? Go ahead, quote such content. As long as all we have is a plot summary plus few cases of the word being used in marketing, GNG is not met. PS. I do find it amusing that two of these sources discuss whether Wolverine's claws can cut through CA's vibranoum shield, and arrive at different answers. But fan speculations are not encyclopedic materials. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:BATHWATER and per Trekker. While it is important to get rid of non-notable fictional elements, Adamantium is the proverbial baby in this situation, being an actually notable fictional material. The article is in bad shape (it may not pass GNG in its current state) but AfD is not cleanup and the effort should have gone into fixing the article instead by adding WP:RS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Seems reasonable to keep. Gusfriend (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely you can do better than an assertion (WP:ITSNOTABLE)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above comments. Pinging participants of the 2010 AFD who have been active this year: User:Peregrine Fisher, User:Jclemens, User:Postdlf, User:Rreagan007. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the above sources, Evans, David. "Wolverine: The Force Behind His Train Lunge." Journal of Interdisciplinary Science, Volume 4 (2015): 90. (reproduced here) is a non-trivial academic (if perhaps whimsical) reference. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jclemens But isn't it more about Wolverine than about the material? My point is that the sources we have for adamantium seem much inferior to what I found for Vibranium#Scholarly_analysis. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And what rule requires a source to be primarily addressing the topic? None whatsoever. GNG/SIGCOV addresses this. If you want to propose mergers on talk pages, fine, but if you want to use AfD to enforce a merger then you need to demonstrate that there's no policy-based justification for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:SIGCOV... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material." speaks to the central argument of focus you raised. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This means that a few pages about adamantium in a chapter on let's say Wolverine are fine. But do we have few pages here? Do we even have a few paragraphs? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The standard isn't "a few pages" the standard is non-trivial. Look at the example (Bill Clinton being in a band in high school) in the policy for, well, an example. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This paper for the most part verifies the etymology section. So if there is original research, it is by no means 100%. The same source also draws another parallel to real-world materials ("Wolverine: The Force Behind His Train Lunge" compares adamantium and osmium), this time to its nature as an alloy. Daranios (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology section has been present in our article since at least 2015. The paper you link was published in 2018. I'm not saying it's citogenesis, which I'm not sure could even apply to this particular kind of material, but it's something to consider. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge to Wolverine (character). This is mostly an aspect of that one comics character; the appearances in other works are trivia. Despite third-party coverage, fails WP:NOTPLOT as a whole. Sandstein 19:14, 11 August 2022 (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.