Deletion of Plastique (comics)

Comment: sourcing is not in-depth enough to show that it passes , unless there is a suitable redirect target
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Majority of the links above range from a couple sentences of basic plot summary to a couple paragraphs of plot summary. They're not saying anything relevant. They're mostly just confirming the character exists and giving a little bit of background on her. It's basically just trying to assert inherited notability due to the popularity of the show/DC TV franchises. There is nothing from which to build even a meager article, so this fails  without a doubt
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Summary-only descriptions of works"  is . Article sources do not meet  or , they are terriary and primary, not secondary   sources with .  showed nothing that would establish notability. Sources listed about are either fancruft, promotional, or mentions, neither meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is a plot summary,  / , nothing properly sourced for a merge. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT||WP:WWIN||WP:GNG||WP:FICTION||WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:BEFORE||WP:OR||WP:SNYTH)

Comment: Please consider the quality of arguments per NOTAVOTE. We started with the claim there are no good sources. Sources have been presented as a rebuttal, fair enough. The sources have been then criticized for being insufficient (passing mentions/unreliable/etc.). This has been ignored, and followed by boilerplate votes which do not present any new critique and just assert notability. Ignoring valid critique with claims  is hardly best practice
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSNOTABLE)