Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Above All

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 redirect to List_of_Celestials#The_One_Above_All. (effectively a merge as the useful material is already there) Black Kite (t) (c) 11:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Above All

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

This article about a Marvel Comics fictional character is an (older) duplicate of the article One-Above-All (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (with dashes) that was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-Above-All for original research issues. This article appears to have substantially the same problems (it has at any case even less references than the deleted one) and also does not establish its subject's notability, containing no out-of-universe references. It might possibly be merged to some appropriate list of characters. Sandstein 06:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not at all the same character, it is another character with a similar name. The one with dashes was indeed an OR construction of putting numerous vague references into the idea of what the comics' universe saw as "God", whereas the without-dashes is a Celestial and a legitimiate character unto itself. (It does look like the previously deleted article is for some reason now a redirect to this one, which is likely part of the confusion, and people have tried on a few occasions to inappropriately merge information from the deleted article into this one, but that has always been reverted.) At worst, this character could be merged into the Celestials article. BOZ (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but this does not address how this character is notable (WP:N). The article says that it has only appeared in six or so issues of two Marvel comics. So we don't have notability either by third-party coverage or by virtue of being a very important character in a very notable work. Sandstein 12:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its section in List of Celestials. Agree with BOZ it is not the same character. Agree with the nominator, Sandstein, there is no sign of notability. The character has between 10 and 20 appearances.[1][2]--Crazy runner (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and there is no evidence that any article about him can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work as there are no reliable secondary sources that give reception or significance for the fictional character. In fact, there are no reliable third-party sources that address the character in detail, so Wikipedia should not have an article about him. All that shows up with a search engine test are unreliable sources. As the character is already covered in sufficient detail in List of Celestials, I do not believe that a merge is needed at all. Jfgslo (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2011 (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.