Talk:Stilt-Man

Fair use rationale for Image:Punisher War Journal Pg 7.png

Image:Punisher War Journal Pg 7.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Daredevil TV show

I specifically clarified it wasn't an appearance of the character, but I think the fact his armor appears in the show (something that had to be specifically requested by showrunners and created by prop designers to insinuate his character exists) should be added to the in other media section. KashmirInt (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Restored

I did restore this article after an AFD, because I had found one more source ("The Supervillain Book: The Evil Side of Comics and Hollywood") and then I asked @Higher Further Faster to see what they could find, and they did add more sources. There were some sourcing improvements to the article in the few months that it was active again, but it was reverted with the claim that there was "no improvement in sourcing quality shown". I dispute this assertion because there were only 3 non-primary citations listed at time of AFD and now we've got 14, but I would also like to see if anyone else sees any more sources, maybe @Fiction Fanatic III who has been doing that on other character articles? BOZ (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@BOZ only seeing this now, but there still really isn't an indication of notability here. The sources used for Reception (Which indicates the character's notability in this case due to a lack of developmental information) are:

1. A Comicbook.com listicle which gives a single paragraph among a large number of other characters. The actual paraphrasing in the article is nearly as long if not longer than the source's own, and the actual source itself is really only saying "He's a fan favorite" with little to no other additional commentary beyond that. This source's importance I feel is being blown out of proportion in the current article as it stands.
2. A Game Rant source which doesn't contribute to notability per Wikipedia:VALNET. While there's an ongoing discussion for this, until that discussion's come to a close, the current policy should still be adhered to. Game Rant is a low quality content farm a large bulk of the time, and cannot be considered a good indicator of subject notability.
3. A MovieWeb listicle, which, while alright, is still only one half-decent source in what is evidently a character with very littleWikipedia:SIGCOV or coverage independently focusing on the character. MovieWeb is additionally owned by Valnet, but I am admittedly unsure if it is also a content farm to the same degree Valnet usually is with sources like Game Rant or CBR, or if it actually publishes solid content consistently like some other valid Valnet sources like Collider and TheGamer.

The problem, again, is that there's very little coverage really indicating why this character is important beyond scattered trivial mentions and low quality sources. I don't see a reason why he's independently notable of the overall Marvel rogues gallery, nor do I see a reason as to why he should be split off the list. Additionally, your book source you're citing isn't even used in Reception, and while I can't access it, it indicates to me that it contains no significant commentary, analysis, or mention of Stilt-Man's impact if it is only being used to verify a single plot detail, though if you feel I am incorrect, then please share what parts of the book you feel indicate this notability. As it stands, though, there has been no significant sourcing improvement that actually displays that this character meets the Wikipedia:GNG, and I believe this should just be merged back to the list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)