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. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Krakoa[edit]

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

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

Article does not indicate that this is a notable element of the comic books. There are no reliable third-party sources cited that discuss it, and the text is more suited to a fan wiki. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 22:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The impetus for the new generation of x-men? Major milestone in the Silver Age of Marvel Comics, and you couldn't find references about Krakoa? I think maybe you might want to consider reading up on comics history before nominating things for deletion. - jc37 22:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources found below by Haleth, otherwise merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: K per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. BOZ (talk) 10:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are to find sources, we should make use of Google like how the sources found by editors like @Jhenderson777: and @Toughpigs: were found. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay. I may not have been there for the first nomination, but I am getting myself involved here and supporting @BOZ: in asking for editors to add more sources to the page. The last nomination had it sent to List of Marvel Comics characters: K and might be sent back there in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE if the outcome is merge. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. The sourcing situation is no different than eight years ago. The only real change is more plot information. There is nothing showing this needs an article at this time. TTN (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not up on my X-Men lore, but surely this would be more appropriate to merge to the locations section of Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, right? Argento Surfer (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But Krakoa does not appear in the MCU. Haleth (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe would also work, then? ;) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the link I meant to use. Thanks BOZ. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NEXIST, and because it appears that the nominator has not done a WP:BEFORE and was mostly preoccupied with the article's current contents. I found the following English language sources through a 5 minute search on Google Scholar:
  • The Mutant Land: How the Island Krakoa Dictates the Mutant Society in House of X
  • Radiant Beings: Narratives of Contamination and Mutation in Literatures of the Anthropocene
  • Lifeglows Through the Anthropocene: Development of the Radical Imagination and Response-Ability Within Superhero Comics
  • Representations of Israel, literal and allegorical, in X-Men comics, apparently has a significant section covering Krakoa's analogy to the state of Israel, along with Magneto's various bases.

This is before we even start counting various pop culture and entertainment websites and outlets that discuss Krakoa in a less serious manner. I did not bother with a Google Books search because a lot of false positives came up, with lots of results for the X-Men source material itself. There is this book which provides some helpful insight into its concept and development. jc37 is spot on, this topic represents a major though recent milestone from Marvel's canon, and the sources I highlighted are very recently published. Haleth (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly notable based on sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now unless someone wants to add a section on reception/significance based on the above sources, then I'd reconsider my vote. Redirect should be soft delete, with no prejudice to reusing past content later when someone wants to rescue this by adding a section on real world significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I took the trouble to find viable sources and bring the attention of the participants to the said sources, I would most certainly be utilizing them, unless another editor in this discussion is keen to do the work of writing prose instead. Wikipedia's notability guideline is quite clear that WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN are important considerations when deciding whether a particular topic is presumed to merit an article. Your response seem to indicate that you just want this topic's article to disappear from mainspace, regardless of whether the sourcing constitutes WP:SIGCOV from reliable and independent sources. Haleth (talk) 13:26, 30 September 2021 (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} 09:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because of the secondary sources found. The current state of an article is not decisive when considering deletion. I wonder if a proper search according to WP:BEFORE, a central part of the deletion nomination process, was done when "There are no reliable third-party sources cited that discuss it" is stated despite some of the sources found be Haleth appear in e.g. the Google Scholar search. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"no reliable third-party sources cited" (emphasis mine) makes me think you are right to wonder. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources provided by Haleth. The subject of the article meets GNG, regardless of the current state of the article. "If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on the above sources which are enough to pass the minimum standards of GNG. Current state of the article is not relevant to notability, as others have said. Rhino131 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2021 (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.