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. Missvain (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oggar[edit]

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

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

This was previously (in 2012) PRODed by User:DreamGuy with rationale "No evidence of enough notability to deserve Wikipedia article instead of merely being mentioned on another page somewhere, complete lack of reliable sources which per WP:RS means the whole thing should be deleted". It was deprodded and sources have been added since, but sadly, 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, since the article is still WP:ALLPLOT and there is nothing I see suggesting this character has been analyzed or has any reception outside of being the usual n-th something in a low-quality plut summarizing listicle here or there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:24, 2 December 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} 06:24, 2 December 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} 06:24, 2 December 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} 06:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not even close to enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Searching for sources turns up a few brief mentions here and there, but nothing close to substantial enough to pass the WP:GNG. It should be noted, though, that there have been several other fictional characters named "Oggar" that some sources popped up for, but they appear to be completely unrelated to the Fawcett/DC character. If anyone can suggest a reasonable Redirect for this, I would likely be fine with that, as well. Rorshacma (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Shazam (wizard)#Origin where he is covered when discussing Shazamo as the original name. It has about as much detail as is needed from the current article based on the character alone. It is a plausible search term, so this is a valid alternative to deletion per WP:ATD-R. He apparently starred in his own serial comic, which wouldn't quite fit into the Shazam (wizard) article, but there isn't much info on it that I can see, so that shouldn't be an issue. If there are concerns over confusion with other characters, the redirect could be moved to Oggar (DC comics). -2pou (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is documented in detail in numerous sources including All in Color for a Dime; 500 Comicbook Villains; Crawford's Encyclopedia of Comic Books; The Fawcett Companion; &c. And, as there were other notable characters with this name, documented in sources such as The Legion of Regrettable Supervillains, we need disambiguation rather than deletion. Our policies WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE apply. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Let this page stay per the information provided by @Andrew Davidson:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge As shown above, there are a number of secondary sources treating the character. I cannot see enough to be sure how much analysis is contained in them, but e.g. The Fawcett Companion gives us an evaluation of the Oggar serial. There is also the publication history as real-world content. So if it is decided that there is not enough evidence for a stand-alone article, there definitely is content to WP:PRESERVE. Daranios (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Fawcett Companion coverage is short but very good real-world development info. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:38, 10 December 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.