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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goldface[edit]

Goldface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Andrew Davidson with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). Again, this has a short sentence on publication history (and a longer but mostly unreferenced section on appearances in other media), plus the usual fancrufty plot summary, no shred of claims of significance, impact, receptions, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (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} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (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} 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Discussions of Goldface appear numerous times in Comic Book Resources (seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia), he seems to be a key plot item in television show The Flash, and even ranked #3 in a Top 10 list. I'm relatively new to AfD's, but my thinking is "what's the harm in keeping?" - AppleBsTime (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• CBR puts out between twenty to fifty lists per day. It seems they were previously a better regulated site, but it has turned into a nonsense clickbait garabage dump. Nothing of what they put out should be included in an article. TTN (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the community discussion that concluded that about CBR? - AppleBsTime (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is none, I'd support starting one at WP:RSN (the only thing I found was a passing mention 11 year ago at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_43). Also, User:AppleBsTime, since you asked "what's the harm", please reasd WP:ITSHARMLESS. Anyway, the two sources cited are pretty bad - they are both just pure plot summaries. Inclusion in one of zillion CBR lists is really nothing special, since their lists are mostly meaningless repeats of plot summary organized as a type of clickbait, note they have usually no analysis or explanaiton of rankings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of terms like "zillions" and "clickbait" indicate to me that you are not being subjective in evaluating the source that you've formed a personal opinion about, but which the Wikipedia community has not even attempted to form a consensus, other than allowing hundreds of links as source material over the years. - AppleBsTime (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article fails to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. William Harris (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep CBR putting out a lot of articles is not a good reason for deletion. Unless a previous discussion can be cited for the site no longer being regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia then its irrelevant and quite possibly POV.★Trekker (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly we need to make some sort of policy regarding using sources like CBR, Screenrant, and others of the like. Some users don't like them, others like myself don't have an issue with them (usually). But it's really just opinion on both sides at this point; we need to establish an official consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just want to point out to the closing admin that the two votes above contain not a shred of argument for keeping this particular article, they are just commenting on whether CBR is reliable or not. Even if it is reliable, this is irrelevant (and as I noted above, the CBR content cited is a pure plot summary anyway).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the closing administrator should note that the two "delete" votes don't provide an argument either. One is purely WP:PERNOM, while the other is from someone who has been copy/pasting "Delete - Fails GNG and NOTPLOT" on just about everything. Darkknight2149 04:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for the one below. Darkknight2149 04:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep contra nom as article satisfies WP:GNG. --Moscowdreams (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock account[reply]
• Delete - Contra Moscowdreams, the article unquestionably fails GNG in my opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per @AppleBsTime:, @*Treker:, and @Rhino131: --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "The DC Comics Encyclopedia" does not indicate notability; as it is arguably a primary source. CBR does not indicate notability as they have zero editorial oversight to what they publish which often includes reaching for bottom of the barrel fancruft. Overall, fails GNG and is Wikia material._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Zxcvbnm: Nonsense. CBR does have editorial oversight and have always been regarded as a reliable news publication on Wikipedia. Maybe you can make an argument that not all of their lists or opinion pieces constitute coverage (there have been a lot more of those since Comic Book Resources became CBR after a buyout), but claiming that they are unreliable as a whole displays an obvious ignorance of the site. And to be frank, the only reason specific users started having a problem with CBR is because they got tired of them having articles about their nominations. That's really what all of this is about. Darkknight2149 21:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • My two cents here would be that CBR is reliable - but not for the lists. Such lists, whether from CBR or from one of the other copycats, are unreliable and pretty much worthless. See also recent discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_315#Popculture_Top_10_lists, where this was the unanimous consensus at RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FICTION. WP:FICTION says Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element. This article right now contains lots of info about their fiction, and the sources are either WP:PRIMARY or used to source that fictional material. The CBR source also seems to speak about the fictional universe, so regardless of its status as reliable I do not think it helps show notability. I searched Google News, Scholar, and Books, JSTOR, ProQuest databases, and Academic OneFile for sources that show his notability in the real world but did not find anything. In order to change my delete endorsement, additional sources need to be posted that show why Goldface is notable in real life. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Z1720. Article does not have out-of-universe context to meet WP:PLOT, let alone WP:GNG. Sources cannot be found that would remedy this. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:37, 23 October 2020 (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.