Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding 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 keep. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Comics[edit]

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

Only primary sources; no demonstration of notability. Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and delete~~ This is a fairly notable book in the comics world, but unless more can be said about it, it belongs in the article Scott McCloud. Shii (tock) 00:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book was reviewed in the New York Times by Garry Trudeau. Though I can't find the full review itself online, I did find a letter to the editor published by the NYT about the review, verifying that it was published. Snippets from the review are widely available online. The author's website also mentions reviews in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Publisher's Weekly. As the book was published 21 years ago, it is difficult to find sources, but I believe that the book is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Belief doesn't carry much; we need references from reliable third-party sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book is incredibly influential and the sources are out there. I'm finding where it's been used as a source for various things but also where it's discussed in several peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and books like this one and especially this book, which refers to it as groundbreaking. I'm adding them to the article as I speak. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source talks about how high profile it was when it released, and these books talk about educators using it in a classroom setting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't emphasize enough how incredibly influential this is. (More sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good sources. I looked into this and discovered two serious, in-depth academic studies which discuss the book at length: The Language of Comics: Word and Image (University Press of Mississippi, 2007) and Comics and Culture: Analytical and Theoretical Approaches to Comics (Museum Tusculanum, 2000). There are apparently multiple chapters in both books that either build on or critique this book. I recommend keeping this article so that this can be expanded on. Shii (tock) 18:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - wondering if we can find sources for the similar work, Comics and Sequential Art? BOZ (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: this book is widely covered and cited by other sources. It floors me that someone would even try to get this deleted. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the last several comments; recommend withdrawal of nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2014 (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.