Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line (comics)

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 no consensus. There does not seem to be broad policy-based agreement on whether or not this is simply a dictionary definition or the start of a solid article. Consensus in either direction has not been reached, but concerned editors should be able to make improvements here without resorting to outright deletion (see SoWhy's comment). Malinaccier (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Line (comics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another dictionary definition, similar to Run (comics), just deleted. This usage of the regular English word "line" is not even specific to comics, but is used widely to mean a range of related products on sale. Nicknack009 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 12:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I swar to god this is the last time I'll ever try to do anything actually informative or helpful on this site. Is it not obvious that this is a concept that exists and is used regularly and would be good to have information about somewhere on this site? How about proposing a merge or turing it into a main product line article instead if you think the comic usage is not unique anough to support its own article instead of just trashing it all?★Trekker (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Publishing lines are about as relevant as imprints are, being used as a tool for marketing and dividing up certain sections of a publishers works. But I guess the fact that "line" is a word used for other stuff negates that. Nice to know.★Trekker (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't very good right now, but I'm not entirely convinced it couldn't be something acceptable. Is this really just using the word 'line' as in a 'line of products' for comics, though? If it is, (which seems likely) it should probably be deleted. Weak Delete.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 16:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I considered a redirect to Product lining, but that target doesn't mention comics (or any specific products). There's no doubt the topic is real, but the sources are mostly for notable lines instead of showing comic lines are notable. When I searched for sources, the term "comic line" is rather generic - it is used to describe comics featuring one character (Superman), a group of characters (The Bat Family), particular versions of characters (Elseworlds), related comics (Marvel Universe), unrelated comics (Vertigo), or every comic from a publisher regardless of genre or character (The Dell line). I think it's a term that can be understood properly in context without the need for a link. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:09, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This seems like a good start for an article on an encyclopedic topic. Comic lines like Ultimate Marvel have had a noted impact on comics and wider pop culture -- see evidence of notability here and here, as well as the other references that User:*Treker has included. Because comic lines are predominantly about branding and narrative, they are fundamentally distinct from product lining so that would not be a useful redirect. A Train^talk 07:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train:, no one has said that individual comic lines aren't notable. Like the sources *Treker provided, yours show notability of a specific line, not the concept of a line generally. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if necessary and then delete - I'm with Argento Surfer here - this is a dictionary article masquerading as an encyclopedia article. And I'm a long time comic fan. I recommend taking the content here that mentions specific lines and putting it into those comics' articles, in a section such as "Notable line", if the info isn't there already. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Keep, 2) restructure to List of comics lines, 3) merge to Glossary of comics terminology or Imprint (trade name), 4) move to line (marketing) or 5) transwiki to wikt:line (in order of preference). Like mentioned above, this is certainly a notable concept and thus something people can expect to find in an encyclopedia. The idea that many specific lines are notable but the concept itself is not seems absurd. Unfortunately, concepts using common words are oftentimes hard to source by searching alone. This is one of those times we have to remember that all guidelines (such as those on notability) are "best treated with common sense, and [that] occasional exceptions may apply". I think this is one of those times. At the very least, the information could either serve as the basis for a stand-alone list allowing readers to find articles about notable comic lines or merged/moved as mentioned above. Deletion is certainly not the right way to handle this subject. Regards So Why 09:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a list is feasible. As I mentioned above, the word is fairly generic and can be applied to a wide assortment of groups. There's not a clear inclusion standard. A Train mentioned Ultimate Marvel as a notable line, but that article describes it as an "imprint." (It does uses the word line as a synonym of imprint once.) Vertigo (DC Comics) also describes itself as an imprint, then uses line as a synonym.
I oppose a redirect or merge to Imprint (trade name) though, because the synonymous meaning isn't reflexive. An imprint can be called a line, but not all uses of the word line can be called imprints.
I oppose a redirect/merge to Glossary of comics terminology because that article is about elements of comic structure, creation, and formats. It doesn't include anything about publication or marketing.
I'm not sure how Line (marketing) would be different from Product lining, but I mentioned above why I don't think that's an appropriate target.
As for a concept not being notable when examples of it are, it's because this is a generic term being defined in isolation. Product lining is the notable concept here - not product lining in comics. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2017 (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.