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 no consensus. There seems to be roughly equal policy-based support for the cases for merging, proposed by the nom, and keeping, laid out by Haleth and Lightburst. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:48, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilandra Neramani[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lilandra Neramani (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 that fails WP:NPLOT and WP:IN-U, of a comic book character that fails WP:GNG. Google scholar search reveals only this (character's name on a list), and a Google proper search returns only fansites, fandom wikis or listicles. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you being willfully ignorant? It's explicitly said that my search was not limited to google scholar Avilich (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:EggishornI was pinged here but I do not feel like working on the article. We do not determine deletion based on what is in the article: if sources exist we keep. CBR, Screen Rant, Villain Lilandra Explained, Cinema Blend, Starjammers, Naming Your Little Geek: The Complete List of Comic, Game, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Back Issue #123, Star-Lord and the Guardians of the Galaxy: An Unofficial Comic Book History. I am sure I could find more - but that is just a few minutes. Subjects like this are not generally found in the New York Times. Lightburst (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally, but it happens.[1] It's a mixed bag, one book is Marvel and one selfpub. I don't know what "we" generally say about SR and CBR for notability, but they are not passing mentions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do know what "we" have to say about Screenrant. "It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons". Consensus from a recent RfC which concluded months ago determined that caution should be exercised for BLP articles, but is otherwise reliable enough. You may want to refer to the archived discussion for Screenrant here for more context. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all just fanfluff, listicles ("10 Marvel Cosmic Characters") and usual in-universe trivia, very little in the way of commentary and reception. Avilich (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator's argument is for the article to be deleted as opposed to a merge-and-redirect because in their view, the topic is non-notable when assessed against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. MCU or not, it is rather telling that multiple media outlets that cover entertainment topics were already going into much detail in published articles about Lilandra and Jessica Chastain's potential casting before the character was even confirmed to appear in the Dark Phoenix film. That tells me notability was never an issue with this character. Haleth (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Literature gscholar article, which you don't seem to have actually read, mentions the subject only very briefly, in a very specific context and almost in passing, and only for conveying plot information. The 'pages worth' of content in your Google Books links are likewise passing mentions and/or in-universe factoids; you say the content 'appears' to be 'non-trivial' but that seems to be false, and I doubt you went any further than simply confirming that the character's name is mentioned in your sources. The first IGN article is not about the character, the second is pure plot information--presumably an IGN article can be found for every single character out there, doesn't mean they're all encyclopedic. There's nothing indicating that this character is notable outside its own universe, no evidence that its a popular cultural icon, no evidence that it was widely commented on. Avilich (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means, provide a screenshot or link in this discussion which shows us the American Literature gscholar article only regurgitates plot info from the X-Men comics. Your dismissal of my contribution to this discussion based on what you believe to be "likely" or "presumably" (PS: no, IGN does not normally devote "an article for every single character out there" as you have suggested) is noted but not accepted. As I have demonstrated, you have not made a convincing case that you have done a proper WP:BEFORE and yet you are trying to tell the rest of us to take your word for it. Your insistence that the character is not notable outside its own universe is unpersuasive when several media sources indicate a clear interest in a potential appearance by the character in an adaptation of said universe, there is no requirement under any guideline or policy that a fictional character must be a "popular cultural icon" to warrant a standalone article other then the fact that there should be significant coverage of any nature from independent and reliable sources, and the numerous sources brought up by myself and Lightburst contradict your vaguewaving that the topic isn't widely commented on. Haleth (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Several media sources" which, again, either provide exclusively plot information, are Marvel-related, or just mention the character in passing when the character is not even the main subject of the analysis. A 'popular cultural icon' will most likely have non-trivial, significant coverage, especially regarding analysis, commentary and reception of the character from a real-world perspective. None of your or Lightburt's sources seem to have any of that: the best you can come up with is "interest in a potential appearance by the character in an adaptation" (not even an actual appearance) from a short, low-effort IGN article of 4 years ago. You don't get to reject the status of 'popular cultural icon' as a useful (if informal) measure of notability while your own sources don't demonstrate that.

Since you asked, here's the extent of the coverage of the American Literature article. “The Phoenix Saga” tells the story of the alien princess Lilandra Nermani’s desperate effort...; ...empire is torn apart by civil war when Lilandra turns against her kin...; ...Lilandra and her supporters fight valiantly...; ...discovers a psychic rapport across the galaxies that leads her to Earth.... That is all. It only mentions the character as part of the overall plot setting, it doesn't actually have any analysis of the character itself. And that's your best source. Avilich (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources I've provided are affiliated with Marvel; IGN, Collider and Valnet-owned properties like Screenrant and CBR certainly aren't primary sources. All the book sources (all of which you have ignored in your most recent response except for the American Literature one, which is merely an example to contrast the correctly identified trivial mention on a list in an academic publication you brought up, and hardly what I call "the best source") appears to discuss the topic from a real world perspective, none are self-published or Marvel-affiliated. The prose you've pointed at as purportedly the full extent of the coverage of the American Literature article also turned up in my google search result. This means you don't have full access to read the article either. This is no different the fact that your AfD nomination is essentially speculating that all instances or mentions of that character in google searches must be pure plot summary or fancruft with nothing further of substance. WP:N specifically defines the scope of "significant coverage" as "more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". I posted two IGN articles, you ignored the lengthier one which discuss the character in detail while focusing on the "short, low effort" about speculative casting. "Popular cultural icon" is one approach or method to measure notability, but WP:FAME makes a compelling argument that it certainly is not the only metric. Yes, the character did not end up appearing in the movie after all...that is not the point I was trying to make though. The volume of media coverage, with at least a dozen or more media outlets having picked up on the casting rumor bit, led to the point that Chastain had to publicly address the rumors instead of ignoring them, is a measure of out-of-universe impact: why would all these outlets care about a potential appearance and who plays the character, if said character is insignificant or not notable in the first place as you are asserting?
In any event, I invite you to read the WP:WHYN section, specifically, the whole point of significant coverage: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. Analysis, commentary and reception you say? At least two of the book sources and the lengthier IGN article I have linked appear to have that covered. Is it very deep coverage? Probably not enough to write a GA or FA class article, but from what I can tell, there is indeed enough to write a short article. I repeat again that an MOS-related issue is not a valid rationale for deletion as it is an editorial concern. And so what if it was 4 years ago, 10 years ago, or even half a century ago? WP:NTEMP makes it clear that once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. The character first appeared in a 1976 comic, and by the late 2010s popular media talk about a potential movie appearance as if she matters. At the end of the day, the onus is still on you as the AfD nominator to demonstrate that you have done a proper WP:BEFORE, and make a compelling argument that the policies of WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE could not be satisfied because the issues surrounding the article is so insurmountable with the only reasonable outcome being deletion. Haleth (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A proper Before does not entail scouring every corner of the planet, just doing a reasonable internet search and assessing the quality of the sources found, which is what I did. Yes, I did check the journal article and it doesn't say anything more than what I quoted, and neither do the books. Secondary sources (especially low-quality ones like CBR, which often put out listicles too) have no more bearing than primary sources on notability if they convey only in-u factoids, which is what the books/links above do, and no, they don't seem to have anything outside of it (the spirituality one certainly doesn't, neither apparently the other ones, nor the larger IGN piece). The demonstrations of article improvement amount to a notice about an abortive movie adaptation, and a mention in a baby name book (put forward above as a source with full seriousness and no sarcasm), which is no basis for an encyclopedia article. I have nothing more to say. Avilich (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but WP:ONUS is on you. If this or any other source contains non-trivial in-depth discussion, quote or summarize it here for us and best, expand the article. What I saw in snippets and such did not suggest any coverage that goes beyond plot summary. If you saw better coverage - please say so directly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The onus, for the purpose of an AfD, is on editors who see merit in the subject topic's notability and inclusion for coverage on Wikipedia to demonstrate the existence of suitable sources. As I have explained throughout this discussion, there are book/scholarly-type sources I brought up which discuss the character, the snippets I could see from Google Book previews confirm that they go beyond plot summary. I have no special access to these sources, no more then anyone else with a Google search, but I've pointed where to look for everyone involved, and it's really up to you on how you form your opinion and arrive to a conclusion. I am not obliged to quote a whole block of text and spoonfeed information when I have already highlighted the nature of the information covered by these sources, or rewrite an article to convince for the purpose of this discussion because article content does not determine notability. Haleth (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do not, and you haven't looked at them. Sources containing only in-universe factoids (and only in passing at that) are useless for determining notability, they add nothing that primary sources do not and are not significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Were there any concerns about the suitability and reliability of Newsarama in any past discussions? Haleth (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Abortive" is a misnomer when the character was never planned for an appearance by the moviemakers. This is something generally reliable sources which are independent from Fox or the X-Men franchise have come up with, which alludes to a certain level of cultural impact and wider recognition behind the character outside of the fictional universe. Your assertion that the secondary sources only contain plot summary info is incorrect. From what I can glean from snippets and book previews, some of the authors have given their opinions of the character (she's a boring/self-righteous character etc), or discussed the character within the context of another topic (spirituality in comics). What this discussion should be about is whether the topic has been subject to significant coverage by independent and reliable sources per WP:GNG, and the guideline does not specify the exact nature of said coverage. The manual of style, which is a separate concern from that of notability, asks editors to write article content from a real world perspective, as opposed to a demand that in-universe info be omitted entirely. Your claim that you already said what you wanted to say in your last post is also noted. No one expects you to change your mind and you have every right to stick to your position, but be mindful of not bludgeoning the process. Everyone else also has the right to decide whether to accept or reject your arguments. Haleth (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've contributed over 51% of this discussion and you're warning another editor about bludgeoning? Well, points for irony, I guess. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not involved at all with the discussion during its acrimonious beginnings, which had been trimmed back by the admin, so it can't be over "51%" as you are claiming. Haleth (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page statistics don't lie. You've contributed nearly 50% of the actual discussion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Over 50%" and "under 50%" is splitting hairs. And you have not answered my question about Newsarama, so I suppose it will go over 50% by now with my response to you. Since you were the one who suggested that the comic wikiproject may have erred in its judgment of the source, I am genuinely interested to know if you are aware of any local consensus which shares the same opinion about Newsrama as one of the participants of this discussion. Haleth (talk) 07:46, 28 October 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.
More