Boomerang (character) : Industrial Insect (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Partial merge to List of Spider-Man enemies as WP:ATD-M — siro χ o 05:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on improvements made to article's sourcing; failing that a merge as suggested by User:Siroxo would be a preferable alternative to deletion.  BOZ ( talk ) 21:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] While I agree the sourcing is a lot better, the fact most of the sources come from one website is not a good look.  Industrial Insect (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per the claims of @ BOZ : .  -- Rtkat3 ( talk ) 00:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as different sources have been added since.  Higher Further Faster ( talk ) 10:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per Siroxo's old comment.  While there are more sources, they all seem to be trivial listicles, which don't constitute SIGCOV.  The reception there is incredibly weak, coming down to about a sentence of actual commentary per article, which, while not bad when there's more significant coverage to add to, is not enough for a standalone article.  I think some of it could be good to merge into the list, as there is some commentary, but I don't think it's enough to justify this.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: B in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE .  BoomboxTestarossa ( talk ) 20:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies per Pokelego999.  The added references, discounting the ones that are pure plot summaries of issues/stories, are all the types of articles and sources that are generally not considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability (i.e. "Top Ten" churnalism style lists from places like ScreenRant or CBR).  Additionally, as stated, most of those sources do not even come close to meeting the threshold of being significant coverage, being a few sentences worth of actual commentary of the character.  And then there are some such as this one , which is literally just a picture and the word "Boomerang", and this one , which is just the word "Boomerang" on a list of cards, which is pure WP:REFBOMBing .  A merge is perfectly fine, but there is not the amount of genuine significant coverage in reliable sources to actually pass the WP:GNG as a stand alone article.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: We have two different Merge target articles proposed plus editors arguing to Keep this article.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  01:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  04:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies , fails WP:GNG : no significant coverage in reliable sources.  The most prevalent source in the article, Comic Book Resources and other Valnet sites, are not reliable sources.  -- Mika1h ( talk ) 16:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to List of Spider-Man enemies per Pokelego999.  I think WP:PRESERVE could be brought up here.  I think it is likely this character could eventualy be given a proper article but currently he is too obsucre.  Questions?  four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above.  Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage in reliable sources.  Shooterwalker ( talk ) 03:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Three WP:RS for this character: [29] [30] [31] BOZ ( talk ) 23:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of these sources seem to describe much beyond plot summary of how the villain works, his backstory, and some of his appearances.  They don't really help Boomerang's case much.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 21:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed with Pokelego999 - all three sources are almost entirely in-universe description/plot summary.  On top of that, none of them are particularly lengthy amounts of coverage, with the entry from the "500 Comic Book Villains" in particular not coming close to being able to be considered significant coverage.  Rorshacma ( talk ) 06:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge