Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latveria

Latveria

[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)

Does not pass WP:SIGCOV. Article is mainly unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references are reliable enough for a comic-book article; and the books in the further reading and references section seem independent and reliable enough. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doctor Doom. All content related to Latveria is intrinsically linked to Doctor Doom and better covered there. I checked the sources used in the article, and the only one used that acts without being entirely tied to Doctor Doom is The Hidden Europe: What Eastern Europeans Can Teach Us, where it is used only in a humorous manner when the author describes Latvia, and is not really significant coverage as a result. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the references already included this conference presentation, which does not appear immediately online, appears to be substantially about this fictional kingdom. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens is there a way to access this presentation? It looks promising, but we can't verify its contents unless it's available to read. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried. Gray literature like this often appears in proceedings of a conference which are often not well distributed or archived online, but it'd likely be possible to find the author's email address and request a copy. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, emailed the author a request about it. Not hard to find, he does other stuff on Dr. Doom like this, and has a literal PhD in Dr. Doom, (looks like his dissertation is now a book, Data and Doctor Doom: An Empirical Approach To Transmedia Characters, but too pricey for me to pick up just to see if this is included) so he likely counts as a topical expert. Jclemens (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being the contents can't be verified, so until we know its contents, I'm not sure we can count this for notability for the time being. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:OFFLINE actually says. A more relevant critique might be that multiple sources from the same origin are often counted as a single source for purposes of notability, which appears to apply in this case. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there’s this:

https://core.ac.uk/works/18757010/

pdf here:

https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/14126/1/LatverianIncursions.pdf Sententia Noveboracensis (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same info the author emailed me back. This is already in the article as it stands now as the final reference. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; sufficient sourcing. While a substantial part of the content should be removed, it would still be too long to merge to Doctor Doom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the respectful reasons done by @DoctorWhoFan91:, @Jclemens:, and @Walsh90210:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]