Deletion of Noh-Varr

Comment: Wait a second here... What do you mean "(existence does not equal notability)"?  That is in direct contradiction to the |Wikipedia Notability test. Just two sections below ,  leads with "Article content does not determine notability" and goes on to state, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."  In essence, this is saying, especially in this case (as I will point out next), the article may just need improvement, not deletion. I get it, and I'm in agreement that there is a lot of bad articles that shouldn't exist, but this one... Are people doing due diligence  nominating or suggesting deletion?  I don't know anything about this character, but the AfD autogenerated template provides all those Google search parameters, and this article title is unambiguous.  I simply clicked on the "Scholar" search to "Find sources", and the first three attributable options (throw out the HTML link) are all attributable to authors, reliable publications, provide analysis as secondary sources, and have significant coverage of Noh-Varr. (http://www.academia.edu/download/37763662/Seven_roads_to_justice.pdf, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FIyACgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA48&ots=W-Fs5XWD6U&sig=7Q0eD3LxdBVWzBTxwWYa9uEry-c#v=onepage&q=varr&f=false, https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=oYX2BgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA77&dq=%22Noh-Varr%22&ots=_vavExf4bx&sig=ANqCBaIw16MSfPU_QP3n3urRxiE#v=onepage&q=%22Noh-Varr%22&f=false - and they're all available (or at least the content in question) for free).Next a simple search for "Marvel Boy CBR" can get you to https://www.cbr.com/tag/marvel-boy/ the tag page where these three articles can be found: https://www.cbr.com/committed-the-dangerous-ideas-of-grant-morrisons-marvel-boy/ CBR1, https://www.cbr.com/year-of-the-artist-day-215-j-g-jones-part-4-marvel-boy-4/ CBR2, https://www.cbr.com/frantic-as-a-cardiograph-scratching-out-the-lines-day-97-marvel-boy-5/ CBR3.  All three provide great breakdowns, whether on story or art.  Art analysis is valid given the medium of the character.Finally, I don't understand the attacks on the existing secondary sources... No, a sexiest character list is not exactly intellectually deep material, but it is still coverage that meets GNG as it is significant (direct), secondary, reliable, and independent.  Knocking it as niche is unjustified--clicking the source's wikilink shows that the source was an Eisner Award winner for Best Comics-Related Periodical/Journalism.  George Clooney has a mention of his sexiest man award on his article...  Alone, does that make something notable, no, but there is a quoted review as well, ''also'' coming from an Eisner Award winner for the same journalism category.  Yes, it's a little clunky since the comment is about a series, and not the character, but the series in question is directly attributable to the character, which comes back to what I said before:The article needs improvement, not deletion. (I just wasted too much time on this character I've never read a story on
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:GNG||WP:ARTN||WP:BEFORE)

Comment: to List of Marvel Comics characters: N. Fails , and no real world notability. Even the "Sexiest" listing is a trivial listing
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)