This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to
comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the
current tasks, visit the
notice board,
the attached article or discuss it at the
project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Dick Ayers drew the Human Torch story in Strange Tales #110, while Steve Ditko drew the Doctor Strange story. That's probably the source of the mistake. I'm about to fix it. --
Jim Henry (
talk)
15:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Notability and sources
I'm seeing 2,350 results in google news mentioning or discussing Kamar-Taj. This massively satisfies any reasonable doubt there might be over notability. Any further reversion of this article back to redirect will require consensus. Polyamorph (
talk)
19:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Which is complete nonsense when the AfD supplies the needed consensus. The consensus from an AfD holds so long as a page has not been edited to a point where that consensus can be reasonably challenged. Just because someone shoved it back into article space randomly a few years later doesn’t erase that. This page is still 80% the same, and the additional content does nothing for the assertion of notability.
TTN (
talk)<
The AfD is from 2013, sources do not have to be present in an article for the subject to be
notable. Things have changed since 2013. The availability of 2,350 google news sources is not nonsense and I urge you to watch your tone. Cheers, Polyamorph (
talk)
19:34, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The article is not substantially different than it was in 2013 aside from some formatting and an additional paragraph. That the topic has been mentioned is not an indicator of anything. Notability isn’t inherited from the parent topic, and the parent topic is the point of discussion. Your blatant dismissal of the AfD without you providing a single source is definite nonsense.
TTN (
talk)
19:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Sources you clearly have not looked at because they're about Doctor Strange. Amazingly, the primary setting of a blockbuster film is mentioned in passing in the dozens of daily clickbait articles about said film.
TTN (
talk)
19:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Kinda hard to do when you personally decide you're able to override AfDs with your subjective reading of a Google search.
TTN (
talk)
20:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The decision to override the AfD was made in 2016, by a user who justified their decision with the edit summary "restore - this is now a major location in the new film; adding sources momentarily". This was not done by me. I followed
WP:BEFORE and I agree with that user. Many other users that have edited the article also seem to agree. There is
WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for reinstatement of this article. You will need to get consensus before reverting another time. All the best Polyamorph (
talk)
20:16, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
And that anon was incorrect in doing so. You're incorrect in doing so. That other people clearly missed it due to this article being edited less in seven years than some are in two hours doesn't mean that you can simply override the consensus of the AfD with a poor argument. There are proper ways to bring back articles. Citing
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not one such way.
TTN (
talk)
20:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The difference since 2013 is that Kamar-Taj featured in the Doctor Strange movie in 2016, and will be in the next one in 2021. I added two more sources to the page. Per
WP:NEXIST, this is a notable subject. How it was recreated and how often it's been edited are not relevant. If you're determined to delete this notable content, you should take it to AfD. --
Toughpigs (
talk)
20:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The existence of new media using something is not at all a reason to restore an article unless backed up by sources. The anon added nothing substantial, and the sources in the article either literally do not mention it or are trivial mentions. I really feel like you need to take a deep dive into
WP:WAF if you honestly think either of those sources are up to snuff. I still cannot reconcile that you literally work under the Wikipedia umbrella but legitimately feel that mentioning something a literal single time within eight paragraphs constitutes a good source.
TTN (
talk)
21:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Because you're blatantly ignoring the consensus of the AfD. Though I'm sure you would likely take the opposite stance of citing an old AfD were I trying to initiate a redirect discussion on something that was kept.
TTN (
talk)
21:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The article passes
WP:CCOS - the rather low review bar.
Consider that if the result were instead deletion, the article in its current state would not be eligible for a
WP:G4, so a 2016 restoration/expansion on a 2013 AFD is not binding in 2020. People always have the option of expanding with improved sourcing without necessarily needing to go to DRV, etc. It's disruptive if it's an immediate recreation, but circumstances do change.
Re
WP:GOOGLEHITS -- a hundred passing mentions of the place have far less weight than
an article specifically on the place... but one article on the place is insufficient to establish notability. Can
WP:THREE be met, because the article doesn't currently show that it does?
I'm comfortable that there's a better chance that it'd survive at AFD (hopefully with continuing improvement if so) but not convinced on a quick look that there's sufficient in-depth coverage to pass GNG.
(Noting that I tend to err mergist =) Sometimes
WP:NOPAGE applies. Even if THREE is met, it appears likely that available reliable sourcing will result in this very weighted towards the film's depiction, which might suggest that general coverage at
Features of the Marvel Universe#Regions and countries with a link to specific coverage at
Doctor_Strange (2016 film)#Production might be the way to go.