This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
Why was this article summarily undeleted? It's non-notable, and was deleted in a fully in-process deletion. I see nothing asserting sufficient notability to warrant restoring. This makes AfD into a powerless joke. ThuranX (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a comic book is coming. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And when the comic actually gets released, IF it does, then we can have an article. Otherwise, this is an admin, Emperor, abusing his buttons, [a way] to violate WP:CRYSTAL. This went through a deletion process for a reason. Those reasons have not changed. We knew there MIGHT someday be a comic then too, and consensus for deletion said when it's out we can create an article, not wait a few weeks and restore. ThuranX (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The former article should have stayed gone. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well...I don't want to go so far. I didn't think it was appropriate, so I posted and relisted the article, but I hardly feel that it was done in bad faith or represented an abuse of the tools. Those are pretty bold accusations and emperor's behavior doesn't fit them. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it was a mistake and leave it at that. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is happening mostly, I believe, because of my comments to Emperor, who drew the initial article (and its deletion) to my attention, wondering whether it was worth trying to resurrect it (and, if so, whether NOW or LATER). It was therefore 'undeleted' to be given acceptable sourcing, thereby addressing (most of) the reasons for its deletion. So alleging an abuse of power on the part of User:Emperor is both inaccurate and offensive. If an article is nominated for deletion, and even if it is deleted, that merely gives pause to a subsequent recreation - it doesn't proclude it. As I have just commented (at some length) on the new AfD page, the original arguments for initial deletion do not apply (as strongly, if at all) to the current article, which is now sourced with reputable solicitation information and interviews.
This article is not in violation of WP:CRYSTAL, the major issue with the deleted article was merely that of sourcing the coming comic - and it's highly illogical to dismiss this as a merely 'implication' that there "MIGHT" be comic coming out. The initial 'consensus' was therefore based on weak logic at best, and has been superceded. (Frankly, the whole process of AfD and gaining a 'consensus' is flawed, favoring as it does unwarranted reductionism while tacitly okaying often-heated disagreement... but that's by-the-by.)
The current AfD was called for by Protonk over sourcing issues alone; those have now been addressed. 'Notability' is a sliding scale that changes person-to-person, and is difficult to determine. However, a team that gains enough attention to be spun into it's own mini-series certainly suggests a level of notability. ntnon (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article shouldn't have been restored, but recreated, is all. Whether it's now deleted or kept is up to the consensus of any editors who care enough to speak up about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I - broadly - agree. However, the outcome would be similar, and the benefit of this undeletion is that it preserves what was undesirable about the initial attempt. Which could conceivably be of value as a reference point. ntnon (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
