Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seven Deadly Enemies of Man

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Deadly Enemies of Man

[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)

This was created from a redirect by User:Rtkat3 earlier this year, and shortly after, User:TTN prodded it with the following rationale: "Fails WP:GNG.", in turn, Rtkat3 deprodded with a comment "There can be potential for this page. Perhaps it can be AFD instead.". Unfortunatley, the article has not been improved significantly since, and the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, so yes, I think this can and should be AfDed instead... so, here we are. Can anyone find sources to rescue this? Otherwise restoring it to a redirect like it was until January this year might be the best compromise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked for a redirect target and found List of DC Comics major characters, but that's too much of a travesty to be useful and should be deleted as a content fork of Lists of DC Comics characters. Any reader familiar enough with Captain Marvel/Shazam to search this term should be able to find the relevant information on related pages without a redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found a lot of mentions of them in sources while looking for Rock of Eternity so I am assuming I feel the same with these characters. Keep in mind I can’t rescue too many articles at one time so no source linking to prove it yet. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper sourcing is brought forth. Nothing has changed since I placed the PROD, so it still fails WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage per WP:GNG. The article should be worked on (or discussed in a section at Seven Deadly Sins or somewhere else), per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOEFFORT.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/4/9/18281369/seven-deadly-sins-shazam-se7en

https://www.dccomics.com/blog/2019/04/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-shazams-seven-deadly-sins

https://comicbook.com/dc/news/shazam-what-are-the-seven-deadly-sins-/

https://www.cbr.com/shazam-concept-art-seven-deadly-sins/

https://www.denofgeek.com/comics/shazam-takes-on-black-adam-and-the-seven-deadly-sins/

https://collider.com/shazam-director-interview-black-adam/

https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a26295869/shazam-dc-trailer-2/

Dark knight 2149 16:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list. Let me review them: [ttps://www.vox.com/culture/2019/4/9/18281369/seven-deadly-sins-shazam-se7en Vox] is mainly about the biblical seven sins, doesn't even compare it much to the movie ones, it is pretty much just stating the obvious 'the seven sins from the movie were inspired by the biblical ones, and here is what those are'. DComics (official blog) is a bit better, as it introduces the characters comic book history, but there is little analysis and the source is not independent, IMHO. The Comocbook one does the same (recap the character history from the comics), but is more independent: [1], ditto for [2]. Then we have a WP:INTERVIEW ([3]), a super short inteview/comment on about the design ([4]). Overall, I think we have reliable sources for plot summary, but still next to no analysis of significance outside the comicverse. This really boils down to whether we consider plot summary recaps sufficient for meeting GNG or not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. They are notable enemies of the Marvel Family and I support the claims of @Jhenderson777: and @Darkknight2149: --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources above. The Vox article is without question a good source. The other articles I find are sufficient for passing GNG because they go into the creation, development, and film adaptation of the characters. Rhino131 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources quoted are satisfactory to meet GNG requirements for a standalone article in my opinion. Haleth (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TTN and Piotrus. Sources indicate plot summary, but not any sort of reception. Just a minor plot element although I can see it being mentioned in some sort of Shazam! (franchise) page that could be created._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Sources 3 & 4 above make a stab at independent summary and commentary, but IMO fall short of what we require in terms of substantial coverage, and the rest is either in-house or interview/promotional. Not quite getting there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Piotrus offers an interesting comment I would like others to address. If there are reliable sources for plot summary alone, is it sufficient to satisfy the notability guidelines? I find it rather odd that it would be enough, but I would like to learn what others think. For now, I am leaning towards delete, but still thinking about it... - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe so. Plot summary alone being the content of an article violates WP:NOTPLOT. "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works."_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the coverage presented is significant. No objection to covering in a list. SportingFlyer T·C 07:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Vox article is decent; it talks about both the fictional characters and the mythical concept, and compares the two. The CBR article has some real-world design info. When comics characters appear in live-action movies and TV, they tend to get coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Please click on the Scholar search above, and you’ll find a handful of informative books and a masters thesis, which discuss these very characters in some interesting contexts. This article seems to add to the encyclopedic knowledge on the subject matter.--Concertmusic (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Concertmusic: If good sources exist, can you link them here, preferably with page numbers or quotations to where this group of fictional characters is analyzed in a way that goes beyond a descriptive plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here are a few sources that directly refer to the subject matter. Nothing in-depth, but illustrating that the article subject is used in analytical and academic studies:
Delete (or redirect to an appropriate target if there is one) - the only decent sourcing is the Vox piece, and in my opinion does not go into enough depth about the characters to warrant passing WP:GNG. Let alone that it is the only decent source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 29 November 2020 (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.