Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne of Gotham

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. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nightfury 10:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne of Gotham

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

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

Fails WP:PLOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. BonkHindrance (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. According to policy, a book is notable if it's "been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself," including reviews. I just added two reviews to the article, from USA Today and Deseret News, reliable independent sources. I agree that the article has far too much plot description and not enough analysis or background, but WP:ARTN says that the topic's notability is not determined by the current quality of the article. It should be improved, not deleted. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources found by Toughpigs are enough to pass WP:NBOOK. AfD is not cleanup, which this article drastically needs. Hog Farm (talk) 01:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NBOOK with independent reviews in reliable sources such as US Today and Deseret News which have been used to add content to the article so that deletion is no longer necessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:HEY, it's been updated to satisfy WP:NBOOK indeed. Well done Toughpigs, and quite quickly. (To be a little more fair to the nominator, the reviews when nominated are dead sites that are definitely not up to the levels of the new adds. They're still available on web archives, but they look like blog posts. I can't see anything on to suggest sparknotes is actually a WP:RS, but critiques4geeks.com at least had an editorial team on their staff page.) Coming off that aside and back to the point, the two new reviews meet WP:NBOOK. Plot could definitely use some trimming. -2pou (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Kirkus also reviewed the book here: [1]
Keep per all the arguments so far -- seems to have passed. Sadads (talk) 16:53, 29 February 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.