Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Red

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. John254 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Red

This fictional comics supervillain is not even very notable within the X-Men series. It has no sources indicating notability to the outside world. Strandwolf (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A violation of the arbcom injunction. And the article claims notability with phrases like very popular. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the article says "very popular" doesn't mean that he is. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a Google books search, I see him described as a fan-favourite. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. And Omega Red appears in comic and TWO TV series (two or more episodes in each serie). Where is the Non-notability? Zerokitsune (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention three fighting games, among other games. JuJube (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Colonel Warden's assertion needs some clarification. The injunction he points to is specific to television characters and episodes. Does that injunction include characters from other works of fiction that later been adapted to television shows? Point being that the article is about a comic book character with a small section accounting for the character being adapted for two television shows. - J Greb (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't say. The general advice per WP:DGFA is When in doubt, don't delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's different that basing a position on an ArbCom dictate that may not apply. If I read it right, the DGA is speaking to when the AfD has reached a close point, not on reason to close it. If a rough consensus is reached to delete this article, a closing admin that is unsure if the ArbCom applies here can fall back on WIDDD and close as a provisional "Keep"
For this to be shut down as a speedy keep, the ArbCom injunction needs clarification. If the intent is that the injunction apply to all articles which in full or in part deal with characters featured in TV shows, then this AfD should be quickly closed without prejudice and revisited after the ArbCom ends. Otherwise... - J Greb (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even without the ArbCom injunction, I find the nomination to be patently false. JuJube (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is a notable comic book character. And yes, the injuction applies because this is a television character so the article cannot be deleted or redirected at this time. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe this has reasonable potential, and if not it would be dealt with in a merge of some kind. Either way the article itself won't be deleted. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charactor appeares in 3 different media (print,tv & interactives) so has a basic claim to notability. sourcing shouldnt be difficult. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I was able to improve the article in regards to references. In addition to appearing on television (thus, the injunction definitely applies), a character that appears in cartoons, comics, and toys is unequivocally notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - snowball, even, per all those who have voted Keep already. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the notability of this character transcends far more than just a singular appearance in some comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insanely easy Keep. One of the most important X-Men villains, with (as mentioned) three types of media appearances, toys, etc. And the rationale for deletion is patently false - Omega Red has been a key factor in several X-Men story arcs. Duncan1800 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across the main article in accidental passing, and was surprised to see the AfD. While this article surely needs cleanup, I agree that this is an insanely easy Keep. I haven’t actively read comics for 10+ years, but I distinctly remember the character "Omega Red". Although his inclusions in comics were not lengthy, the importance of those storylines and the interactions with major Marvel Universe characters (especially Wolverine's origin storyline) is paramount. --Mespinola (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (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.