Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Sr13 (T|C) 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of most valuable comic books[edit]

List of most valuable comic books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article contains no citations; author has refused to provide them. As it stands, this appears to be nothing but original reasearch. Delete unless this information can be verified. Heimstern Läufer 00:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The article contains original unverified research, namely the claim that the comics listed are the "24 most valuable" which is not supported by the article is a split from, First_appearance#First_appearances_of_popular_heroes.2C_villains_and_teams, itself unreferenced. Even saying that the comics are the most valuable without quantifying it would be original research, unless there was a definitive list of known record-breaking or setting auction prices with third party coverage thereof. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No vote yet but this might be suited best for a site like this. Hard to generate an accurate list here, and as that site shows, the prices vary by condition of the copy in question. Do we really think we can have an accurate list here? We'd never really be sure if the order was correct. --W.marsh 00:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless the article becomes up to the standards of WP:V, I suggest a delete. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "this list is an estimate" is not a good way to start an encyclopedia article. If it were a list of the most valuable recorded comic book sales it would at least satisfy WP:V, but not like this. --Dhartung | Talk 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though this kind of thing might belong on a article about collecting comics, in some form or another, this overall list smacks of price guide, which isn't the sort of thing Wikipedia should try to provide. At least, not IMHO. FrozenPurpleCube 02:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly not notable. This kind of list demands good citation. JodyB talk 02:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding Sourcing In it's current state this article very clearly exhibits original research, but to put in focus, this subject is certainly sourceable and verifiable. [GPA Analysis] provides market research on individual comic book sales, The Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide gives value estimates annually on comic collections and I believe [CGC] tracks pricing on comics they grade. Just mentioning that the topic is viable (although certainly not in it's current form) and might be of interest to collectors, comics owners and auction houses. -Markeer 02:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently uncited original research. Attributing directly to Overstreet (or one of its competitors) presents copyright and NPOV problems. We don't say that Wikipedia is not a price guide, but we should. Also, as an aside, the current content is simply wrong. The Brave and the Bold #54 is nowhere near one of the 25 most valuable comics; there are easily more than 25 that trade virtually exclusively in the thousands of dollars, and probably that many in the tens of thousands, underscoring why this is out of the scope of this project to keep accurate. Serpent's Choice 10:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (note: this reply has been restored after having been improperly deleted [here] by User:Rodrigue): FYI attributing to Overstreet or any other reputable source is emphatically neither a copyright violation nor POV. The whole point of Wikipedia is to cite and verify all allegations. Please refer to WP:CITE and WP:V. Footnotes are good things, not bad :) -Markeer 03:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it that the article itself is not notable or that it is not properly created, because that is a simple problem and does not require an AFD Rodrigue 13:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should have said the article could be notable but is not given its present condition. If proper sourcing was given which validates the information then perhaps. But here's the rub, wouldn't such information almost require a copyright violation? I mean, the valuations would likely come from a pricing guide who's material would be copyrighted. Is there another source which would not prove problematic? This article would also, it seems, quickly run out of date as I would assume the valuations change over time. But that being said, the article in an of itself would be ok JodyB talk 15:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dont think you people can say that the article subject itself is not important enough to be an article.Just look at the article on list of most expensive photographs or most expensive painting.I can easily fix the sources and everything if that is the problem, but how about saying if you think the subject is important enough. Rodrigue 13:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with the article is that it is entirely original research. You took a table (an unreferenced one, at that) from an article on superhero first appearances, copy and pasted it into this article, and called it the "24 most valuable comics." You took a seemingly random and completely unrelated list, made a claim, and then completely failed to justify that claim. Even if you found a source to the prices of the books, the whole premise of the article "most valuable" would be thrown out. Additionally, if you were able to find out the most valuable comics sold at auction, you would need to back it up with independent third party sources to support every contention, not just shifty Overstreet listings or stuff crimped from the back of Wizard. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I copied the table from the article is because the information is more properly suited in an article like this, and it is not original reseach if the prices have been established.And so are you saying the article needs to be deleted or changed because of the fact that it says "most valuable" and not "most expensive".
    • But anyway perhaps another opinion is needed, because the fact that you nominated it for speedy deletion when you knew it shouldn't have shows how biased you are on the issue. Rodrigue 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, it was denied for speedy and nominated here by another admin. This is the second opinion. Hell, this is the third, fourth, fifth and nth opinion. And it is original research to say its the 24 most valuable, or even in the cases of some of the cheaper first appearances, most valuable anything. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and keep Actually, looking at links, diffs, refs , and surrounding discussion, it looks like all the refs are available and provided, though perhaps not entirely clearly. So the nomination reason (and that of several of the delete opinions above) does not in fact apply. Interesting! --Kim Bruning 15:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC) oh, interesting, a revert war has actually obscured the one reference link that had been provided on the page itself. Even so, comics are pretty popular, so this information shouldn't be too hard to compile at all, either way.[reply]
    • Comment Like I addressed with you elsehwere, the whole basis for the article is based on faulty original research. Some of the prices may be accurate, but the basis of the article is inherrantly flawed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neutral-ish (Definitely don't salt though). *NodNod*. I also talked with one or two other experts. The article is source-able, and it's possible to find the real info in those sources. I've even linked them. But the data in the article now likely does not agree with the sources, and I'm too lazy to actually put in the right data.:-P I'll leave that to someone else, if they feel like it at all. And else a similar article can always be re-started by someone who does have that amount of time on their hands. --Kim Bruning 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so... I've never seen a real comic book publication even try to do that. They can just list the most expensive ones they know about, which will by nature of the market be incomplete. A speculative list is not really something we've traditionally included. --W.marsh 00:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are multiple problems with this article. First of all, there is no reason to assume that the 24 most valuable comic books will all be first appearances of characters. Secondly, the article creates an artificial distinction between "most valuable" and "most expensive" without explaining that distinction. Thirdly, it would be difficult to write an accurate article about this topic without violating the copyright of a price guide or engaging in original research. --Metropolitan90 16:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Infrangible 01:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is confusing. The word valuable can either mean how desirable an object is, or how much money it is worth. This article, as is made clear in its first para., is about the desirability of these comics as opposed to how expensive they are. That appears to be OR, and cannot be NPOV. I know NPOV is not of itself a good reason for deletion, but in this case there is no way NPOV could be achieved because desirability is such a personal thing. To then attempt to apply a monetary value to the desirability seems to be mixing up two separate things. A properly sourced List of most expensive comic books like the similar photos and paintings articles would be OK. Smalljim 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, so would that be a proper solution then.Instead of deleting the article we change to an article of most expensive comic books, just like list of most expensive paintings and list of most expensive photographs.Perhaps it was just a mistake to use the "valuable" terminology.
    • But this list is not the most "expensive". You took a list of first appearances and falsely claimed they were the most... anything. They're not. And try to read the arguments made above. W.marsh puts it very succinctly. "You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. To clarify my comment above, I'm not suggesting that to copy the existing list into a new "most expensive" list would be a solution. The data must be properly sourced, if that's possible. Oh, and it would have to include all comics - like The Beano and The Dandy :) Smalljim 23:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would suggest that the article on comic book collecting would be the most likely target for any such information. It needs a bit of improvement anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 04:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Bulldog123 13:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But like I said, there is an article for most expensive photographs and most expensive paintings, and so by fairness this article should stay as well.Even if the content is something don't agree upon, the nature of having an article on most expensive or vauable comic books does qualify as a notable article doesnt it? Rodrigue 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or maybe those articles should be deleted as well? In any case, I support the article on comic book collecting (I would also support one on art collecting, photograph collecting I don't know, but I have no objection to it). However, those articles might mention some valuable paintings, but that coverage should be secondary to the main purpose of the subject itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say that I think the opposite should happen.I don't think the article on comic book collecting or an article on art or photography collecting should be there at all.Theoretically you can think of an infinity amount of "things" and write about how people collect them.And besides, who has ever used the term art or photography collecting anyway, atleast comic book collecting is something many people are familiar with.But when you make an article on list of most expensive things, that the things listed on that page will likely be of historic or cultural sighnifigance, even if what the item actually is isn't.I have already nominated the comic books page for deletion which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comic book collecting. Rodrigue 21:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also like to point out that the original reason for this AFD, that the article is original research and should be deleted unless verifiable, is now debunked seeing as how the sources are there, but I suppose people have their own reasons for why it should be deleted otherwise the discussion should have ended by now. Rodrigue 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the deletion process ends after 5 days, or when the nominator closes it. The fact that the discussion is still going on has nothing to do with people having their own reasons or whatever. Second, slapping a few unverified sources on the article doesn't automatically debunk all arguments for deletion. Third, the fact that articles exist that you deem similar to your article, is generally not considered a strong argument for keeping an article. Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for more on that.--Atlan 23:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean "the sources are there"? At the moment there are only two external link footnotes in the article, one to a dead page, the other to an article on a collector who wants to buy Action Comics #1 (which means it doesn't represent a real value on an item, only a potential unrealized value). The remainder of the entire article is still uncited, and above all else there is no citation that these are in fact the most expensive comic books out there. Someone earlier in this AfD already pointed out that The Beano and The Dandy have sold for more than, say, Brave and the Bold #54. Beyond this, a simple google search leads me to [this page] just listing realized auction sales from two months in 2004 -- several of which are for a larger amount than half the items in this article (e.g. Action Comics #45 for $2600, or Amazing Spider-Man #19 for $5000). People have called this original and uncited research for a reason: the data is patently inaccurate as a list of the highest sale prices, and beyond the simple state of the data being wrong as listed, there's no attempt that I can see to cite those prices that ARE there. As I said above, I think there's an article that could exist on this subject, but this is not it.-Markeer 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comment on my own comment: I took a couple minutes to register an account with [Heritage Auction Galleries] (you need an account to see prices of their finished auctions) and noted there are quite literally dozens of realized sales for comics for amounts far in excess of those on this list. Forget that this article is missing, say, All Star Comics #3 (sold in 2003 for $126,500) or Human Torch #2 (sold in 2006 for $74,750). Looking down a bit I see that a copy of GENE AUTRY COMICS #1 was sold in 2002 for over $25,000 (seriously? Gene Autry??). I'm sure the article creator might say "great, add those to this article" but the problem is I have no idea if any of these sales are the highest for those issues or if other auction houses have sold other individual golden or silver age comics for more than those listed at this one auction house. So I have nothing I can cite toward an article on "Most Expensive" or "Most Valuable" at all. All this 5 mins of work has done has proven that the current article list has very little accuracy. -Markeer 03:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First of all people dont seem to understand that the reason they will find different prices for the comicb books is that this list is about desireability and not what they sold for, which is why it is most valuable comic books.And I don't think that an article with a lack of sources is a good reason to nominate it for deletion anyway, that is why you tagg it first and wait if the sources are there.but my main concern is that regardless of how unsourced the article is, the topic that it is dealing with is a notable one that doesn't deserve to be deleted otherwise, because there are other lists of most expensive stuff on wikipedia, and if people want it can just be changed to most expensive, because I suppose people would find more sources for how much they sold for. Rodrigue 12:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One problem is that I don't even know how we could expect to measure value in terms of desirability, as distinct from price. If I can't even figure out what the article is trying to say, there's no point in looking for sources to verify it. --Metropolitan90 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no problem with whether or not you can get sources. That's irrelevant to my concerns, which is that this article appears to be a price guide, and as such, isn't quite encyclopedic on its face. If there is anything encyclopedic that can be gotten out of it though, try comic book collecting as a place to put it. FrozenPurpleCube 15:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI personally don't disagree with turning the article into one about most expensive instead of most valuable, I only used that term because I thought it would have been a better meaning, but the only issue here is wether an article on comic books by price is a valid article, which I think no one seems to disagree with so perhaps the article should just be changed to most expensive and subsequently the list would change, Now I think desirability was a bad method of listing. Rodrigue 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If we do have a list of most expensive comic books, mind you, we'd need sources for every single price, as well as some way of capping the list (25 most valuable? 20 most? Everything over $10,000? $100,000?). Veinor (talk to me) 20:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move I dont think that will be as much of a problem as you think, because there are the two article of most expensive paintings and most expensive paintings, and deciding how many to put on the list is an arbitray decision that can be made for any reason.I will vote for moving it to that article, it seems like a fair decision Rodrigue 22:44, 8 May 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_most_valuable_comic_books&oldid=1186087369"