Talk:The Expendables Go to Hell

Subject not notable, proposing redirect
I believe this subject is not notable enough for wikipedia, as should be obvious from the small number of citations, which include a primary source, and only secondary sources of questionable quality. The comic itself appears to be nothing more than an attempt by two writers affiliated with the Comicsgate movement to attach their names to an ongoing film franchise, using an expired license.

I have removed the mention of this comic from The Expendables (franchise), though that may have been too bold a move on my part. My recomendation is that this page to redirect either to that article or the Comicsgate page (seeing as the few secondary sources actually covering this give significant weight to the writers' affiliation.

Pinging and  who have been involved with this article and the one on the Expendables franchise, and  as well as, who in my experience are the resident experts on Comicsgate and related topics. Any thoughts on what should be done with this article? 46.97.170.79 (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * At a glance, it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK (the closest we have to a comics notability guideline at the moment.) Going over the sources, Bloody Disgusting, Bleeding Cool, and Movieweb are not high-quality WP:RSes; and the remaining source is a youtube video.  I'd suggest just redirecting to either Comicsgate or The Expendables (franchise), since all coverage seems to be in the context of one of those two things. --Aquillion (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would personally prefer a redirect to Comicsgate. It's safe to assume that the only reason every single person involved with the film franchise isn't publicly distancing themselves from this comic and disavowing Dixon and Meyer is because they don't know it exists, of if they do, they don't know who the writers are. I don't believe for a second that Stalone himself is involved aside from maybe signing a piece of paper that one of his employees handed to him, thinking it was just standard procedure. I don't believe either him, nor anyone else connected to this franchise want their name associated with either of these people, and Gamergate/Comicsgate has a long history of hijacking other projects for PR purposes (think The Fine Young Capitalist donation drive, Sad Puppies, or that time they tried to recruit Zack Snyder and hijack his charity drive to advertise one of their websites. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 46.97.170.79 you cannot make assumptions of what Sylvester Stallone does and doesn't do. Do you know him? Do you have a reliable source that state otherwise? The topic of the comic book series is legitimate and a part of the larger franchise. The company producing the comic books WOULD be sued for printing Stallone's name as a writing credit, without his acknowledgement/awareness of the project/and likewise earning money from the project. If it were to happen, that would give us a definitive answer to your proposes scenarios. We cannot however WP:CRYSTALBALL this situation and simply decide that the topic does not relate to the franchise...because you don't like the creatives involved(?). No, the section is absolutely being re-added per notability and reliable sources.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

That was easy to find. Here's a direct quote from Stallone here: "Images from the next Adventures of the EXPENDABLES - GO TO HELL!! … Thank you Chuck Dixon and your amazing team for working on this. Go out and get the graphic comic which is going to drop soon."--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the reliability of that source, but if some people believe this subject is notable, they probably shouldve included it. I confess, I wasn't expecting that. I made an incorrect assumption, that Stallone's involvement didn't go beyond simple legal formalities around the license. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings. Meyer has a pretty bad reputation, that has been extensively documented at the Comicsgate article, and Dixon has worked with Vox Day in the past. I could be a fan of their work, and it still wouldn't change these facts. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 46.97.170.79 - again, regardless of whether they have a "bad reputation" or not, does not warrant their notability/reliability. Digital Spy is a reliable source. The comic book is an installment within the franchise, and that is why it is notable. Cheers m8!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the ping: I don't see how this is notable enough to merit its own article. It could be redirected to Comicsgate, but I think it might make even more sense to redirect it to Chuck Dixon, frankly. The mention in some reliable sources doesn't necessarily justify inclusion, but it definitely doesn't determine notability on its own, either. Grandpallama (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)