Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional spectrum

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional spectrum

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

Seems to be pure WP:FANCRUFT, entirely primary sourced. More suitable for Wikia but there is already an article on it there. The name is also dubious as any searches go to articles talking about real life emotional spectrums. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this one. I think there's enough coverage within the comic news niche to support an article, especially if some of the various [color] lantern corps are merged into it. It's also referenced by numerous articles, and it makes sense (to me) to have a fan-crufty article with all the information in one place rather than explaining it in 50 or 100 plot summaries. That said, I'm not interested in putting any effort to actually making this article decent. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's quite a big deal in the GL universe and its storyline and so there are obvious alternatives to deletion which we should preserve per our editing policy. It seems easy enough to find sources for the topic such as Superheroes: The Best of Philosophy and Pop Culture which has a chapter on "The Rainbow of Emotions..." Also WP:FANCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and Wikia is an advertising vehicle which we should not step aside for. Andrew D. (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that the concept is notable. In that case, it can be put in Green Lantern Corps or Power ring (DC Comics), there is no need for an entirely separate article with this much fancruft. If it is notable, it can be split off once that section is sufficiently large and referenced._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"This much" fancruft? If there's an acceptable level of fancruft, why not prune out the excess instead of deleting all of it? You don't seem to deny that reliable sources exist. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reality is this is an integral part of the GL mythos, and frankly if something THIS important to the story gets deleted then delete the whole thing. That's like removing all mention of the Force when it's literally the central driving force of every Star Wars movie. Yes there is a "real" emotional spectrum, but this one is real in that it's an integral part of a huge, decades old comics series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18-Till-I-Die (talk • contribs) 01:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not much for notability, but at the very least it needs to be moved to Emotional spectrum (comics) to make room about the real emotional spectra mentioned by nom. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Would actually be Emotional spectrum (DC Comics) as (comics) is used for actual comic books rather than concepts or characters._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft, describes fictional concept only in-universe (WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 09:07, 24 March 2018 (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.