- 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 merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. ST47 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Cloak of Levitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fancruft about a single, non-notable item that fails WP:GNG. Even if it's worn by the notable character Doctor Strange, notability is not inherited. The name is also quite generic, I was WP:SURPRISEd to see this was a Marvel item and not just a fantasy trope. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect per the previous AfD. No real sources were ever presented. The most coverage you'll see is A. Commentary directly related to Strange and B. Trivial coverage from MCU news articles. Neither are enough. The topic is basically part of Strange. TTN (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep as a notable item that passes WP:GNG due to existence of real published and nontrivial sources sufficient for justifying the article. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC) striking sock vote. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? Of the ones in the article, only one is not primary, and that does not provide enough in depth coverage to pass WP:GNG--Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the arguments in the previous AFD, or at worst merge into Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. BOZ (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology. Doesn't pass WP:GNG by itself, but a reasonable search term. I'm not convinced it's a generic term, but that seems more of a TVtropes idea than for here anyway. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology - Plenty of hits come up with searching for it, especially due to its role as a "character" in the movie, but none of them are actually in-depth. Outside of the ones that are pure plot summary or contained in official Marvel/MCU publications, most things talking about it are more or less brief snippets. I also find this to be a rather unnecessary WP:SPLIT from Dr. Strange's article. The cloak is part of his normal costume, its role in fiction is intrinsically linked to him, and there really is not a whole lot to say about it that is separate from Dr. Strange himself. It should certainly be covered on Dr. Strange's article, but none of the reliably sourced information is notable or lengthy enough to need to have it split off into an independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Doctor Strange#Artifacts and technology Dream Focus 17:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep A merge is ridicules idea, the article is fairly big and would make Dr Strange article huge! Govvy (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of the content on this page would not need to be merged, which is why size would not be an issue. A brief description of the cloak as one of Strange's prominent pieces of equipment and part of his costume - yes. The entire fictional history of the cloak and every appearance of it in "alternate universes" sourced only to the comics themselves, which is what the bulk of this article is, - no. Rorshacma (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2019 (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.