Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adamantium
and cleanup.  Many, if not most, articles on subjects from contemporary popular fiction are in a poor state, written primarily from an in-universe perspective, and lacking in third-party commentary.  But where, as here, we are dealing with a fictional subject that is decades old, has figured in many different kinds of media as part of a indisputably notable franchise, and has been woven into many separate serial works, there should be ''some'' presumption of notability and '''an effort to address the article's flaws through editing and discussion FIRST rather than through a deletion nomination.'''  There will always remains a question of what level of detail an indisputably notable franchise/serial fiction topic should be documented, and what elements of that franchise/serial work merit standalone articles.  But in this context at least, that is ultimately an editorial decision, not a deletion decision, because this element needs to be discussed ''somewhere'', and it is not of relevance to only one article topic.  In any event, as shown above, sources have been found and I am confident that more will be found |over time.  The nom's comments suggest that he did not look, but rather took the article as it appeared and presumed it could not get better.  That might be a proper assumption if we were dealing with a one-off supporting character from one TV episode, or something from fan fiction or otherwise self-published, but that's obviously not the case here
— User:Postdlf, 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:DEADLINE (Wikipedia:There is no deadline)