Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberhero (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberhero

[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)

Not a cybernotable cyberconcept. Unduly promoting Dana Klisanin. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Dana Klisanin. I don't see anything in Google Scholar or JSTOR to suggest others have taken up this concept. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was agreed to be kept 6 years ago. The arguments in the previous discussion hold on to this day. The sources in the article are reliable. Though the article needs a little clean-up, it's still good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Superastig, could you elaborate on why you think this passes WP:GNG? I looked for sources but came up empty. In the current article, references 1 and 2, and 10 are by Dana Klisanin (the person who proposed this archetype), I don't see where 3 mentions "Cyberhero" at all?, 4 is a passing mention, 5 is a personal blog post commenting on the paper (ref 1), 7 and 11 are brief Q&As with Klisanin about the paper (ref 1), 8 doesn't focus much on this archetype either -- more on the general phenomenon and has a passing mention of Klisanin's archetype, ref 9 and 1 are the same reference. I searched online but couldn't find anything else. Ajpolino (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:33, 2 November 2021 (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.