Deletion of Kraken (Marvel Comics) (2nd nomination)

Comment: The issue here appears to be whether TTN A) Conducted a efore search to look for sources and then nominated the page for deletion after determining there likely were none, or B) just looked at the sources already on the page and nominated it for deletion after determining they were not enough. If it's A, that is fine, but if it's B, that's a problem. My understanding of policy is that the burden is on the nominator to conduct at least a basic search for sources for notability or alternatives to deletion, rather than place the burden on other editors to do that work after the fact
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Bots (WP:B)

Comment: Until better explanation is given. Per , , , , , and ,  is determined only by the existence of sources, not by the quality of sourcing in the article. If the problem is that it merely {{green|"fails to establish notability"}}, then this is not a concern for fD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DELREASON||WP:NEXIST||WP:ARTN||WP:ATD||WP:NNC||WP:HANDLE||WP:GNG||WP:A)

Comment: None of the versions of the character listed here appear to have enough coverage to pass the .  As far as I can tell, there is only a single secondary source being used in the current article, and that is nothing but a casting announcement for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., that only has a single sentence that isn't just copied straight from the Marvel Database.  Searching for additional sources does not turn up much on any of the listed versions
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)