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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 01:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Cloak of Levitation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This fails to establish notability. The only real sources seem to be topical articles related to the new movie, but they're mostly just irrelevant. TTN ( talk) 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 12:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep and reprimand nominator for WP:BEFORE failure. The above Google News link shows a plethora of references to this fictional element in the upcoming movie and associated trailers. GNG is easily, predictably, and obviously met. Jclemens ( talk) 02:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

• As I explained, they're just irrelevant topical articles that will add no substance to the article. They have no worth beyond explaining a comparatively minor element to the MCU-only fans. "*Random news site* described the Cloak of Levitation in layman's terms to casual fans" is not a particularly important statement. It's just fluff. TTN ( talk) 02:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • RS Articles on Doctor Strange movie are irrelevant to Wikipedia article on Doctor Strange fictional elements? Truly, a unique and unsupportable perspective. Jclemens ( talk) 07:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Please do show how a bunch of useless news articles can be used in the context of the article. You won't, because you can't. Weight has to be taken into account when looking at should and can be included in an article. These recent news articles amount to harmless click bait with no substance. Why is it that you cannot just take an objective look at sources? TTN ( talk) 10:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'd be interested to hear what specific information from these sources Jclemens thinks should be included, and/or if he thinks the article is currently in acceptable condition. Argento Surfer ( talk) 12:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Jclemens. BOZ ( talk) 04:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the powers and abilities section of Doctor Strange. Despite the high number of hits this term has on google, it's not independently notable and it's unlikely there will ever be enough real-world information to justify a standalone article. If it is kept, however, then a link should be added from the Doctor Strange page, which currently mentions it twice but never links it. Argento Surfer ( talk) 16:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to the powers and abilities section of Doctor Strange per Argento Surfer's comment above. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 23:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep pretty much per JClemens. Nomination is logically incoherent. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 10:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I was looking this subject on WP up after reading the following line: "There’s even a great deal of physical comedy, much of it from Strange’s ornery cloak of levitation... Like Guardians of the Galaxy’s Groot before it, this animate artifact will likely prove itself the film’s true breakout star." ( source). SnowFire ( talk) 02:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep or Merge into Doctor Strange article under Power and Abilities. This AfD probably would have gone more smoothly (or even unanimously) if it had been posed prior to the release of the film. Although I would like to assume good faith, the presumed objectivity of the nomination does come into question. Due to such comments as "irrelevant topical articles", gives the impression that establishing notability is based on the whims and judgement of one editor, who could have proposed a discussion on the article talk page before jumping headlong into AfD. With all that aside, I can see see merit in merging the article into the Doctor Strange article carried out by nominator, who has a habit of deleting/redirecting articles without trying to salvage what information can be used in a sub-article nature (first appearance, commentary by creators, minor reception). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain ( talk) 13:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Doctor Strange. It's part and parcel of the fictional character, any notability derives from him.  Sandstein  16:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Supplementing my keep !vote, above, from the Chicago Tribune review of the film, "the Cloak of Levitation . . . is a pleasure, a supporting player of wit and distinction, emblematic of the best of "Doctor Strange". [1] It's not our place here to declare that subjects aren't worthy of the independent critical attention they;ve received. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. ( talk) 21:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep - an independently notable artifact. bd2412 T 18:48, 7 November 2016 (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.