Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extinctioners (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) — Caknuck 23:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extinctioners[edit]

The page asserts no notability, as do none of the related pages. Kwsn^(Ni!) 05:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search of "Extinctioners" returns a good deal of material relating to the subject of the article, it doesn't seem terribly obscure (like some other afd candidates), even if it seems to have a rather narrow audience, I don't see it as being any sort of marketing ploy...I'm not intimately familiar with Wikipedia's policy on notability specifically surrounding comic books, but it seems alright to me (I probably sound so naive right now). Calgary 06:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Keeping the above in mind, I'd have to say that the other articles related to this article don't seem all too neccessary, constituting what I believe is referred to as "fancruft" Calgary 06:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on AfD'ing them if this one came back as keep, otherwise they would probably fall under an G6 speedy, I think. Kwsn^(Ni!) 07:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might not be the most famous comic of all time, but the article seems to be reasonably researched, and is actually fairly well-written, and seems to be in keeping with Wikipedia standards. --Milton 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge character articles into a big list. The comic is notable enough for a main article and a character article, but an article for every single character seems a bit much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Badly needs cleanup. Most characters (if not all) should probably be merged to a single page, but the comic itself is notable. Despite targetting a niche market, it has been consistently sold through mainstream distributors and has been reviewed by a number of credible sources (CBG had an Extinctioners cover at one point). I'll see if I can't scrape up some references. Serpent's Choice 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Extinctioners was featured on the cover and reviewed in Comics Buyer's Guide 1379. CBG isn't searchable online, so I'm seeing if I can't find a hard-copy to reference from. It was also reviewed ("missing a little bit but ... a well thought out universe") in CBEM 370, but obviously ezines (even well-established ones) aren't preferred sources. The comic, at least after the Shanda acquisition, has also been distributed by Diamond Comic Distributors, which is at least a cut above most furry comics (I'm pretty sure it was never a Previews cover, but that's almost always DC anyway, so isn't a good barometer). Preorder numbers (via CBG) seem to indicate sales of about ~1000 per issue, which is low but not abysmal for an indie. There's some mention of the comic in Erie-area newspapers, although that's likely to be local bias (the author is an Erie resident). Trying to dig up more in between other research and non-Wikipedia life; I've been putting off referencing the actual article because its such a daunting cleanup task due to other problems, but I still think its over the WP:N bar... Serpent's Choice 19:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless the sources appear in the article, the article fails WP:N. It is the responsibility of those wanting to add or retain material to add sources. People wanting to remove material are under no obligation to prove that none exist. Jay32183 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge character articles into a single article or delete them. Would suggest a link to Wikifur, which allows more in-depth coverage of the topic. -- Kesh 01:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reverted my close, as no reliable sources to show notability have been given. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources in the article to give real world context. Notability is based on sources. That is, no sources = not notable. Jay32183 00:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would including portions of an article written about the comic that appeared in the Comicbook Buyer's Guide be sufficient as a "reliable source"? I felt that last time we met all the standards for the article being include, though I note that it has been changed by an outside source recently. The artilce was significantly shorter and direct prior to these last alterations by an outside source. Shawntae Howard

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.