Deletion of Madmen (DC Comics)

Comment: to List of Blue Beetle enemies.  showed nothing that would support a stand alone article and the sources in the article are two primary and one brief mention/plot summary in a tertiary source. &nbsp;&nbsp;//&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: to List of Blue Beetle enemies. Sources exist which verify them as recurring villainous characters within DC Comics exist, but are of little encyclopedic value when it comes to sustaining a standalone article. I need to point out that  is not a content guideline or policy but a point of view argument and not onsensus, and whoever wrote the essay also made it clear that it is also "not by ''itself'' grounds for deletion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:C)

Comment: Non-notable fictional group with very little coverage in reliable sources.  Two of the current sources are primary, and the third, which is the same as the one mentioned by Andrew above, is comprised only of brief plot summary.  Searching for additional coverage in reliable, secondary sources turns up nothing.  The fact that it was "created by one of the most notable figures in Comic Book history" is irrelevant, and notability is .  I agree with Reyk that it also does not serve as a useful search term for a redirect
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: as there are not enough sources or coverage to support a stand-alone article and fulfill the . Would accept some small amount of merging after the redirect, which can be accomplished through normal editing processes
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The |PROD was disruptive because that process is only for "''uncontroversial deletion''" and "''must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected''".  But the nominator's attempt to give instructions to opposers indicates that they expect them.  And I naturally oppose such cases because the nomination's assertions lack evidence and are false.  In this case, we just get a cut/paste nomination which fails to address the topic or the fact that it already cites ''https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/The_Encyclopedia_of_Super_Villains/kIQUAQAAIAAJ?hl=en The Encyclopedia of Super Villains
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)